Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< November 23	November 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 09:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Garebian

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. This is written differently enough from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but still isn't making a better case for notability.
The attempted notability claim here is that he's been a winner of minor local or regional literary awards that are not prominent enough to constitute instant notability freebies in the absence of passing WP:GNG, but the sourcing still isn't adequate to get him over GNG: of the five footnotes here, one is a dead link, one is a directory entry, two are Q&A interviews in which he's answering questions about himself in the first person, and the only one that represents third-party journalism comes from a weekly community hyperlocal in his own hometown.
I've also already had to remove several primary sources from the article, namely his own self-published website about himself and two pieces of his own bylined writing about other subjects, which are not notability-builders either: you don't make a writer notable by citing his writing to itself as proof that it exists, you make a writer notable by citing his writing to third-party coverage and analysis about it as proof that it's been externally validated as significant by people other than himself.
The interviews and the hyperlocal would be acceptable for use as supplementary sourcing if there were other, better sources being cited alongside them, but are not GNG makers in and of themselves if they're all he's got -- but none of the other sources that have been used here are notability-building ones at all, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Prolific author, has several reviews published in Canada [1], [2], [3]. This one as well [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: coverage in a newspaper [5] and much coverage from the Wikipedia Library using the link above. He was also a theater critic for Canadian journals back in the 1970s [6], and was the author of a critical review of My Fair Lady [7]. I know Canada has a small population and we don't get much attention, but I'm amazed no one's ever heard of him! Oaktree b (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wrote/updated this after attending a reading of his in Canada and taking a photo for Commons; he was well received by fellow authors at the multi-author reading and by attendees, and clearly well known in the literary community. He seems to have with a number of equally read long form critical reviews of major works over the years. has snag separate followings for his criticism and his poetry. Would definitely benefit from better sourcing, but deletion is not the answer. – SJ + 00:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better sourcing has to be shown to exist, not merely presumed to maybe exist, before deletion ceases to be the answer. So if you're the one who wants to create the article, then you're the one who has to find the correct quality and depth and volume of sourcing off the top, and use it in the article you create right from the start. You can't just create an article with bad sources, and then say "well, find better sources for me then" if somebody challenges the bad sourcing — there's no guarantee that every person who exists necessarily always has any better sourcing at all, so it's on you to use better sourcing from the jump. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the existing sources and works/publisher list satisfy GNG. And AfD has always worked better as a third rather than first resort. You might try just asking for more sourcing. – SJ + 01:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Going by the sources in the article, Garebian's works have won sufficiently significant critical attention to pass the SNG threshold. There's clearly something of encyclopedic worth to be written on this subject. —Alalch E. 17:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject's achievement was recognized by the library system of his city (7th largest city in the country). It has met WP:AUTHOR. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This discussion is badly fractured and establishing a consensus here is very difficult. Additionally to this, the article has been changed somewhat significantly during the discussion (not necessarily a bad thing, especially where it incorporates some of the new information found). No prejudice towards a renomination should someone wish to do so. Daniel (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Xu

AfDs for this article:

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

The reference to the subject does not satisfy the notability guidelines. Clearly failing WP:GNG, as well as failing WP:NBIO. Bimanmandal (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bimanmandal (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, China, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to be a promotional article for the person. --Kammerer55 (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as this article does not appear to have improved since it was previously deleted in 2017, relying mainly on non-independent sources, including many articles authored by the subject. Search of Newspapers.com turns up exactly one article in The Los Angeles Times which details a lawsuit against him along with other owner(s) of LA Weekly. Does not meet WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Kevin Xu mentioned in this newspaper article is not the same individual as the Kevin Xu referred to in the main article; they merely share the same name. Please stick to the facts.

Voxl (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is the same Kevin Xu. The LA Times article mentions him as the CEO of Mebo International. The Lux Magazine article (among others) discusses his co-ownership of LA Weekly. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep the "Kevin Xu" Article~~

The "Kevin Xu" article should be retained as it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines with significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. These sources detail his notable impact and achievements. Additionally, if the article is kept, I recommend incorporating information about any controversies or disputes involving this individual, ensuring a more comprehensive and balanced representation of the subject.

~~--Loving This Mayweather (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)~~ Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2023 (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. Li, Han (2023-09-15). "A Chinese Businessman Gave $1M to San Francisco for APEC. Who Is He?". The San Francisco Standard. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  The article notes: "Xu, 35, inherited the company in 2015 after the unexpected death of his father, Dr. Rongxiang Xu, who founded MEBO. At the age of 27, the younger Xu was not ready to take over an international corporation, but he received much help and encouragement from mentors to help him get through the transition. ... The $1 million donation also gives Xu some benefits and responsibility, as he now co-chairs the APEC Host Committee ... Even though Kevin Xu lives in Los Angeles, he has strong ties with the Bay Area, too. Xu serves as the chair the board of directors at the Bay Area Council, a pro-business group in San Francisco. He’s also the board chair of Street Media LLC, which owns the Marina Times."
2. Li, Li 李莉 (2021-11-08). "徐鹏：敬畏生命是通行世界的语言" [Kevin Xu: Respect for life is a universal language]. 科学中国人 [Scientific Chinese] (in Chinese). China Association for Science and Technology. ISSN 1005-3573. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  The article notes: "徐鹏出生的1988年是美宝集团成立的第二年，与美宝一起成长，... 2011年，从南加州大学神经科学专业毕业后，中西方科学和文化的融会贯通让他的视野和格局上升到新的境界和高度，他更加深刻地感知到人生价值和生命意义的神圣内涵。毕业后，徐鹏进入美宝，开始与他的父亲徐荣祥一起研究和发展人体再生复原科学技术，为人类的健康和生命质量提升探索新的可能。"
  From Google Translate: "Kevin Xu was born in 1988, the second year after MEBO Group was established. He grew up with MEBO... In 2011, after graduating from the University of Southern California with a major in neuroscience, he studied Chinese and Western sciences and The integration of cultures brought his vision and structure to a new realm and height, and he more deeply felt the sacred connotation of the value and meaning of life. After graduation, Xu Peng entered MEBO and began to study and study with his father Xu Rongxiang. Develop human body regeneration and restoration science and technology to explore new possibilities for improving human health and quality of life."
3. Saunders, Andrew (Autumn 2019). "Meet the Renaissance entrepreneur: Kevin Xu". Lux Mag. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  Although the article is overly promotional, Lux Mag's about page says, "Lux is a feminist magazine of politics and culture founded in 2021. We publish a glossy print edition three times a year featuring our award-winning writers, and a regular newsletter." It lists an advisory board, an editor-in-chief, editors, and contributing editors.
  The article notes: "He was born and raised in California, but we meet in London – he came for Royal Ascot, but also for meetings with charities and NGOs he’s interested in – before he headed to Japan for that country’s first-ever G20 summit. He’s on the advisory board of the California-China Trade Office, serves on the Asian Advisory Board at the University of Southern California’s Davis School of Gerontology, mentors young entrepreneurs at MIT, is the founder of the Kevin Xu Initiative at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago and has endowed a new Neurotechnology Center in California Institute of Technology. The list goes on. Perhaps the relationships he is most proud of, however, are his ties to two former US presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. He’s a member of the Clinton Global Initiative and a contributor to the Obama Foundation, and recently spent a fortnight with Clinton in the US Virgin Islands, working with the 42nd president of the United States in connection with its efforts to help rebuild the region after the devastating 2017 hurricanes. ... And what of his co-ownership of Californian media outlet LA Weekly, which he acquired in 2017 alongside several other local investors?"
4. Liu, Xianxian 劉先進 (2023-06-30). "華裔徐鵬捐百萬助金山辦APEC 成目前捐贈最高贊助商" [Kevin Xu, a Chinese-American, donated millions to help Jinshan organize APEC, becoming the current top donor sponsor.]. World Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  The article notes: "生物醫藥公司MEBO的執行長、華裔徐鵬捐贈100萬作為APEC的舉辦經費，他也是參與APEC捐贈的最高贊助商之一、目前捐贈最多的華裔。"
  From Google Translate: "Kevin Xu, CEO of the biomedical company MEBO and a Chinese-American, donated 1 million to fund APEC. He is also one of the top sponsors of APEC donations and the Chinese-American who has donated the most."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kevin Xu (simplified Chinese: 徐鹏; traditional Chinese: 徐鵬) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard I reject that Lux Magazine passes the WP:RS test. There is no statement of editorial integrity. They accept contributions from whomever, you just have to email them. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lux Mag's "The Team" page notes, "Darius Sanai is Editor in Chief of LUX and owner of parent company LUX Global Media. He is a consultant Editor in Chief at Condé Nast International. He launched Vogue Hong Kong in 2019 and has launched and edited more than 25 media brands for Condé Nast over the past 15 years." I see no indication on their website that "They accept contributions from whomever, you just have to email them". Would you provide a source for that?

Even without the Lux Mag article, there is sufficient coverage in the other sources for Kevin Xu to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

Cunard (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard Sorry but looking through the Lux magazine website really does not inspire confidence with regard to editorial independence. To answer your question, the quote from the "About" page says: "Lux welcomes pitches. Send a short email outlining your idea and why you’re the one to write it to pitches@lux-magazine.com." The publication also explicitly states that it "creates content for branding": "We create content, concepts and events for our partners and advise on strategic direction and brand...Our studio and our sister company Quartet Consulting offer a full suite of media and personal branding services, with a focus on UHNWI individuals and significant figures in the business, art and luxury space...We also offer services adding value to brands and individuals around the world and creating enduring and effective strategic partnerships through our contacts in art, luxury, wealth management and philanthropy." It's quite clear that a lot of the feature articles on "philanthropists" are vanity pieces. Pretty photographs and presentation, though. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I am striking this source but maintaining my position supporting retention as the remaining sources are enough for Kevin Xu to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and a reliable source also mentioned that Xu Kaiwen was elected as the co-chair of this year's San Francisco APEC hosting committee.APEC 2023: Gwen Stefani, Canadian prime minister, Indonesian president among VIPs at Pres. Biden gala at Exploratorium - ABC7 San Francisco Exitdent (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Assessment of recently discovered sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This seems ok [8] but trivial. The Lux discussed above seems a non-RS. I'm unsure about the rest. Oaktree b (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The translated Chinese article in the second source seems ok, but I don't think these are enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oaktree b (talk · contribs). Here is another Chinese source that provides biographical information about the subject:
Zhang, Bing 张兵 (2021-11-08). "徐鹏：助中医药打开世界朋友圈" [Kevin Xu: Helping Traditional Chinese Medicine Open Up the World's Circle of Friends]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2023-11-25.
The article notes: "眼前这个1988年出生的小伙，8岁就旅居国外，多元化的生活环境混合出他更独到的见解，他更善于找到中、西交融的切合点。2015年4月，美宝集团创始人、美宝集团董事会前主席徐荣祥在美国意外逝世。... 在父亲葬礼上，徐鹏收到两封手写的信，一封来自美国前总统克林顿，一封来自美国前总统奥巴马，... 一年后，徐鹏在山东济南出生。8岁时，徐鹏被送往美国学习。 ... 在2015年接手经营美宝集团之前，美国加利福尼亚州州长布朗就授予徐鹏顾问一职，助推加利福尼亚和中国之间的经贸往来。"
From DeepL and Google Translate: "The young man, born in 1988, has been living abroad since he was eight years old, and his diverse living environment has mixed with his unique insights, making him more adept at finding points of convergence between China and the West. ... Kevin Xu graduated from the University of Southern California, majoring in neuroscience. He is currently the Vice President of China Foreign Trade Council, Director of China Trade and Investment Commission, Chairman of Global Greater Bay Area Strategic Health Committee, and Chairman of the Board of Mebo Group. ... At his father's funeral, Xu Peng received two handwritten letters, one from the former U.S. President Clinton, one from the former U.S. President Barack Obama ... A year later, Kevin Xu was born in Jinan, Shandong. At the age of 8, Kevin Xu was sent to the United States to study. ... Before Kevin Xu took over the management of MEBO Group in 2015, Governor Brown of California, USA, appointed Xu as a consultant to promote economic and trade exchanges between California and China."
The combination of Li 2023, Li 2021, and Zhang 2021 is enough for Kevin Xu to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".
Cunard (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not think the "translated article in the second source" referenced by Oaktree b (Li 2021) counts as independent coverage in a reliable source. Every interview-driven article needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and in this case there is nothing in the article that isn't something that Kevin Xu obviously said about himself, his father, his personal opinions, or recapping his CV, and it comes across as oddly self-promotional.

On that basis, though, the article that actually seems better than it did at first glance is the San Francisco Standard article (which is tempting to dismiss because of the Wikipedia article about the publication but taking a closer look, at least the publication itself currently has a strong statement of editorial standards). What I would highlight in the San Francisco Standard article are all the statements made which are things Kevin Xu obviously would not have offered about himself or which have a slightly different interpretation compared to what he told other interviewers:

"At the age of 27, the younger Xu was not ready to take over an international corporation, but he received much help and encouragement from mentors to help him get through the transition...In the Chinese-speaking world, MEBO faces many controversies involving Dr. Rongxiang Xu, with critics calling him a liar for claiming he developed the technology for so-called “human organ regeneration.” In response, MEBO’s official website posted an interview in which Rongxiang Xu denied the accusations and stood by his patent."

So for me, the strongest two articles contributing to the WP:BASIC standard of notability are the LA Times article about the lawsuit against Kevin Xu and other co-owner(s) of LA Weekly and the San Francisco Standard article pointing out the controversy about the MEBO "human organ regeneration" patent. Another article which puts some of the MEBO controversy into perspective, is "Snubbed for a Nobel?" in The Scientist, in which Kevin Xu explains why his father Dr. Rongxiang Xu decided to sue the Nobel Prize Committee for "excluding" him from the 2012 Nobel Prize for Medicine which was awarded for research in regenerative science:

"Xu’s son, Kevin, told The Scientist that those discoveries have since allowed 20 million burn victims to restore their normal skin, and according to the MEBO website, the treatments may have much broader applications, including regenerating organs and curing cancer...Xu’s son says his father did not submit his results to mainstream peer-reviewed journals because “he did not want to spend a lot of time writing articles for publication.” Xu did, however, publish in a journal he edits, called The Chinese Journal of Burns Wounds & Surface Ulcers, and with two other doctors, he wrote a book on MEBO techniques in 2004. For the past two decades, his findings were touted in online press releases and news stories in Chinese newspapers; a short 1992 documentary features his research; and at least one US company sees promise in Xu’s treatments. Botanical drug development company Skingenix, also based in Los Angeles, is sponsoring Phase II clinical trials to test whether MEBO products help heal foot ulcers and burns. These studies are not designed to shed light on whether MEBO and stem cells share anything in common, however, and Skingenix declined to comment on this story."

I am striking my previous !vote as I still really don't like the article (it has the appearance of "reputation laundering"), and a lot of the other independent coverage is more about the controversy about his father rather than about him, but if it is kept, I will try to help fix it.

On that note, I would ask Kevin Xu fans to please consider whether it is really worth keeping this article. He is obviously an individual who wants to keep tight control over his own narrative and always talks about himself (his father and CV and donations and emotions) rather than about his actual business decisions, results he has led his company to achieve, or directly addressing the controversies around MEBO and LA Weekly (except for The Scientist interview). If you read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, you will see that it says about articles that have been requested by the person: Anything you submit will be edited mercilessly to make it neutral. Many autobiographical articles have become a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in several instances their original authors have asked that they be deleted – typically unsuccessfully, because if an article qualifies for deletion the community will typically do that without prompting, and an article won't be deleted just because its subject is unhappy with it. There are many other websites besides Wikipedia which would allow for more control for Kevin Xu to publish a more positive biography about himself and to continue to promote MEBO and Dr. Rongxiang Xu in a positive light. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am striking my previous !vote as I still really don't like the article (it has the appearance of "reputation laundering"), and a lot of the other independent coverage is more about the controversy about his father rather than about him, but if it is kept, I will try to help fix it. – thank you for reevaluating the sources and striking your previous vote. I've rewritten the article to remove promotional content and to make the focus more on him rather than on his father. I've tried to make the article as balanced as possible in touching upon the company's controversy with his father but not spending an overwhelming amount of ink on it. I hope the rewrite makes it easier for you to support the article's retention.

Cunard (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw that Keivn Xu also established the Kevin Xu Initiative on Science, Abhilash Mishra is a member of the Initiative, and has published an article in Science magazine with the theme of "changing the status quo of American science".Abhilash Mishra,Director, Kevin Xu Initiative on Science, Technology and Global Development,Science's new frontier | Science Ransacked like 1776 (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are also new discoveries. He gets involved in many fields and is also a board member of UCI Esports.Esports Leadership Board — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ransacked like 1776 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I've decided to close this discussion as No consensus. If there were more participants here, I think the closure would have been more decisive. I'll just note that the article was tagged for discussion soon after its creation and has been subject to additional editing since its nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Saul

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted via a deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Saul). Most of the sources provided on the pages are from before the previous discussion, which would indicate that Saul is still non-notable. However, a few sources have been published since the last discussion in 2021. As such, I wouldn't necessarily consider this eligible for CSD, but it's worth discussing whether Saul is now notable. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Journalism, Politics, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tagging me. I'd like to emphasize some of the new sources I've added to this article between the first and second nomination: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3],^[4], ^[5]. I thought that these references were some of the strongest in the piece. We now have direct mentions from CNN, Axios, the Financial Times, Forbes, Yahoo! News, Business Insider, Salon, and NBC Universal (none of which are articles Saul published himself). Doesn't this put the article well over the standard three-reference limit?

References

^ Lexington, Transylvania University 300 North Broadway; Fax: 859‐233‐8797, KY 40508 USA Phone: 859-233‐8300. "Creative Intelligence". Transylvania University | Calendar of Events. Retrieved 2023-11-17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Conley, Julia (2020-11-13). "Trump campaign presents 238 pages of ridiculous GOP poll watcher affidavits". Salon. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
^ Academy, NBCU (2023-10-11). "How Substack Journalists Are Growing Their Audiences". NBCU Academy. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
^ Avilucea, Isaac (August 2, 2023). "Tangle founder hosts high court chat in Philly". Axios.
^ Waldmeir, Patti (2022-05-30). "Two Americans talk across the political divide". Financial Times. Retrieved 2023-11-17.

Mover of molehills^{move me} 21:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So my position is obviously keep, although I'm not sure if I'm allowed to comment on my own article. Mover of molehills^{move me} 14:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mover of molehills you're perfectly entitled take a position in the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mover of molehills the guideline for notability of people is WP:BIO, which asks for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", while WP:THREE suggests presenting three references to show that WP:BIO is met. I don't think the five sources you linked provide the required coverage

Transylvania University: listing for a talk by Saul at TU, not independent coverage
Salon.com: quote from Saul, not independent
NBCU Academy: looks like a mini interview, so not independent
axios.com: listing for a talk by Saul, not independent coverage
Financial Times: quote from Saul, not independent

TSventon (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — sources should notability, particularly the ones in the "Recognition" section.

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The relevant notability criteria here is: WP:JOURNALIST, which says: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors...The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews... At first glance Saul appears to satisfy this (given that this article makes the "influential" claim with regard to both the 2016 and 2020 elections). But it seems fair enough to have to take a closer look at whether the sources actually bear this out, as there is very little discussion about the specifics around the 2016 election, and rather thin discussion about his other work as a journalist throughout his career. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've found a few new sources about Saul since I published this article that I wanted to share, in case it's useful to other reviewers. I haven't added these sources to the article yet, because I'm not sure what specific facts they would support that aren't already in there. However, I thought they could help to establish notability: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4].

References

^ "American Democracy Summit Speakers". American Democracy Summit. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
^ "Isaac Saul - Official Member of The Progress Network". The Progress Network. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
^ "Frank talks to Isaac Saul, Founder of Tangle News about the Israel-Hamas war. – 77 WABC". wabcradio.com. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
^ Hibberd, James (2022-11-15). "'SNL' Ratings Hit Season High With Dave Chappelle Amid Uproar". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate newly found sources not placed in the article yet. Right now, there is disagreement over whether existing sources are sufficient to establish notability for this journalist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just replaced the Transylvania listing of Isaac Saul's talk, which was justifiably critized by TSventon as not independent enough, with a more detailed article: ^[1] Mover of molehills^{move me} 23:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Brother, Nate (2023-12-06). "Transylvania Hosts Journalist Isaac Saul in Creative Intelligence Series". The Rambler. Retrieved 2023-12-08.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources above demonstrate anything approaching notability. School newspapers are not independent sources on people their university invites to speak, nor are profiles by organizations the subject belongs to. It takes MUCH more recognition than a handful of mentions surrounding one or two events for someone to meet NJOURNO.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, although please note that the sources above are only the sources that I added recently – there are quite a few more listed in the article itself. Mover of molehills^{move me} 23:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kashi Mitra Ghat crematorium

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

Not much on the page to suggest notability and I don’t see much else. It is possible they exist in Bengali however I note that our friends at bn.wiki do not have much else on their page either JMWt (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. JMWt (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Significance unestablished; only one source that merely confirms location. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Article provides no real info and I am unable to find anything in RS reference material to establish notability (or, in fact, verify anything other than that it exists). Fails GNG. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jackson, Tennessee. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oman Arena

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

No refs on the page since at least 2013 and does not appear to be much to suggest that a 5000 seat arena is notable. JMWt (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jackson, Tennessee, the location of and former owner of this building. Another possible target is Jackson-Madison County School System, the current owner of the arena, however it is only mentioned in the city’s article making it my first choice. Building is not independently notable based on a complete lack of references, but a 5,000+ seat arena which hosted some NAIA basketball games could be a reasonable search term. Frank Anchor 01:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Zhengyan

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and I can't find any significant coverage. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and China. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For those searching for sources, the subject's name is 吴争艳 / 吳爭艷. I'm hoping to get to this over the weekend. Folly Mox (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found two articles (both suspiciously by the same author) that demonstrate SIGCOV. The subject has also had a collection published in print. Those are probably the three best sources, although I had a few other leads where the connection timed out on me, so who knows. There's also this 2013 dual exhibition which doesn't contribute to notability. I'm not able to assess notability here. Folly Mox (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We could use additional analysis of newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yinka Sunmonu

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

I don't believe one story in an anthology and a novel with one very short article discussing it meets WP:AUTHOR. I couldn't find anything to meet WP:JOURNALIST either. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (I created the page.) That she was given her own entry in the Companion to Contemporary Black British Culture suggests to me she has a place in recent Black British culture which makes her notable. Dsp13 (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My initial search for sources indicates she also developed a website, which was reported on in the Guardian in 2004: New chapter for black literature. Beccaynr (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The entry in the Companion to Contemporary Black British Culture (2002) includes biographical information and indications of further coverage, such as "Her work on fostering and adoption was featured in the Channel 4 Adoption on Trial series and a paper on her adoption survey for the Voice newspaper (the first of its kind on black attitudes towards adoption) appeared on the Channel 4 website." Her paper "Why black carers are deterred from adoption" was first published in Adoption & Fostering in April 2000. In addition, there is the review in Wasafiri by Steffen Krueger of her novel (pp. 73-74) Cherish (2003) I reviewed at the Wikipedia Library, and I found a review at the Community Care website. She was interviewed by the The Guardian in a Q&A format in 2003 after her novel was published, and as noted above, in 2004, The Guardian reported on her website development, and also includes her statements. She also wrote for The Guardian in 2004, and there is a note appended about her upcoming participation in a debate and her association with the Thomas Coram Research Unit. I think with the available sources, there is support for WP:BASIC notability, and the article could be further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantive entry in Companion to Contemporary Black British Culture and other sources found by Beccaynr enough for GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Zuaiter

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

Individual is notable only for WP:ONEEVENT, and fails WP:VICTIM criteria. PROD was removed.

Teammate Ibrahim Qusaya was also PROD, but was removed and is now up for deletion under the same rationale. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Palestine. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment both articles have been translated and expanded into both Arabic and Hebrew Moondragon21 (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per nom Seawolf35 (talk - email) 00:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Textbook ONEEVENT case. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, he was a multiple volleyball representative of his country. Only then, unfortunately, is Zuaiter known about the circumstances of his early death. There are sources on the Arabic and Hebrew Wiki to expand our article. --Dominus Moravian (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the mentioned article looks to be notable enough to be kept, but it needs to add more text/sources... Ali Ahwazi (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not terribly influenced by the two keep !votes but also looking for more participation to establish a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NSPORTS, WP:SIGCOV and even WP:NPOV. (Look at the sources: "martyred" etc) Geschichte (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is a player of Palestine national team. As he represented his country in international level, he is automatically notable. But more sources and information should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showib Ahmmed (talk • contribs)

There is no rule or guideline on Wikipedia to support your claim of "automatic notability". Geschichte (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 1E article, fails GNG, NBIO, meets NOTNEWS, NOTMEMORIAL. Sources in article and BEFORE showed nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, sources are brief articles about a recent event which mention the subject. No sources show the event will meet WP:LASTING and fails NOTNEWS. // Timothy :: talk 12:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:1E. gidonb (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear case of WP:1E. No guideline stated that national players are automatically notable, so his career as a Palestinian team does not confer any notability. No sources/references before the incident showed that he didn't pass the notability bar. His name could be mentioned at Jabalia refugee camp airstrikes but he shouldn't have his own standalone article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SUSTAINED SIGCOV is lacking and there is no presumption of notability from playing internationally. A standalone is not warranted.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Ansari

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

Fails notability, looks like another almost-fake article to make a resume for a non-notable Iranian athlete. this is his UWW profile he never won any of those so called titles mentioned in the article. just an ordinary wrestler who never even make the national team, let alone winning international medals. Sports2021 (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sports2021 (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sunday Telegraph (Sydney)

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

Non-notable newspaper, failing WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:GNG, despite being a common newspaper in Australia. Tagged for no references since February 2017. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 22:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and Australia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 22:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator doesn't seem to have bothered to look for references before nominating the article for deletion. The Mumbrella website (which covers the Australian media) returns 25 pages of results for a search on this publication: [9], for instance, many of which seem usable. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D, I did not seem to find any notable references for that version of the Telegraph. Pining @Cunard, to see if he can find additional refs. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 08:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominatior of this deletion discussion, I will move the Sunday Telegraph specific controversies already on The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) article, to the article mentioned in this discussion, so I at least have controversies with refs. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 08:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick-D. Jenks24 (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand this AfD. As much as many refer to the paper as a chip wrapper, it is clearly notable. Lister needs a WP:TROUT. TarnishedPath^talk 11:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator of this discussion, I have added these references to the article:

Mediaweek (2019-02-08). "Weekend Newspaper Readership down, Sunday Telegraph is most read". Mediaweek. Retrieved 2023-11-25.
"Open revolt flares up in Czechoslovakia". The Sunday Telegraph. 19 November 1939. Retrieved 2023-11-25 – via National Library of Australia.
Christensen, Nic (2013-07-10). "News Corp Australia increases the cover prices of Sunday tabloids". Mumbrella. Retrieved 2023-11-25.
Hicks, Robin (26 October 2012). "Mick Carroll replaces Neil Breen as editor of The Sunday Telegraph". Mumbrella. Retrieved 2023-11-25.
Aston, Joe (2020-07-28). "Campion, Joyce forgive The Daily Telegraph". The Australian Financial Review. Nine Entertainment. Retrieved 2023-11-25.
"The Daily Telegraph most read newspaper in NSW". news.com.au. 1 October 2019. Retrieved 25 November 2023.
"The Sunday Telegraph wins Newspaper of the Year award". The Daily Telegraph. News Limited. 6 November 2011. Retrieved 25 November 2023.

As the nominator, I support a withdrawal of this discussion, per the above references I added. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 22:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yarisleidy Mena

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

The subject, a Cuban women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions like 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivana Ivaštanin

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

The subject, a Montenegrin women's footballer, seemingly made a single appearance for her respective national team as a teenager. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Montenegro. JTtheOG (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Bo-ik

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Her only claim to significance is being related to some famous people, the cited references are neither reliable sources nor substantial coverage, and nothing better has been found on searching. JBW (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. JBW (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherent. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD"d so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned above, not inherited, and this is article is also just a genealogical policy violation. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolina Vujadin

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

The subject, a Bosnian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. JTtheOG (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and I don't see an additional relist bringing on anything other than split input Star Mississippi 16:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn–UAB men's basketball rivalry

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

Subject does not meet WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of significant, independent WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, and Alabama. Let'srun (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I added another source to the article from AL.com (major news source in Alabama) talking about the rivalry. It looks like other sources have been added since too. AuburnShuffle (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here's a look at the sources, in the order in which they appear in the article: Auburn Tigers fansite (not an independent source); seems to call every competition Auburn's teams have a "rivalry": "Auburn has a lot of rivals. The Iron Bowl .... The Auburn/Alabama rivalry is .... Auburn has great rivalries with Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee. ... Today, we're going to talk about one of Auburn's great but severely undervalued rivalries, UAB Basketball." So, this is basically meaningless opinion-mongering, and explicitly trying to promote as a rivalry something not generally recognized as a rivalry. Second source is an unrecoverable dead link. Next, no mention of rivalry. Fourth: ditto, and laments the lack of games between the two schools. Next even says "Both UAB and Auburn have a rich basketball history" but mentions no rivaly, despite covering a four-game non-league (exhibition) game series between them. No. 7 mentions no rivalry, and is just a listing of games available on WatchESPN streaming. Next, no mention of a rivalry, just coverage of a game's highlights. 9th source: Ditto. Last: Says "Auburn and UAB aren’t annual rivals", and "the budding in-state rivals"; i.e., it is trying to predict that a noteworthy rivalry might develop.
It's become clear after half-a-dozen or so of these alleged-rivalry AfDs that what is happening here is that various editors are engaging in the WP:OR that if a series of games is set up between two institutions that this necessarily translates, as if by magic, into "a rivalry" in some encyclopedic sense, but this is clearly not the case. There is no in-depth coverage anywhere of any such rivalry existing, as a WP:Notable subject unto itself, between these two schools, or any of others in the similar AfDs. See, e.g., Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry for what an actually notable sports rivalry looks like, with significant in-depth coverage of the rivalry as "a thing" (with articles like "Manchester United vs Liverpool rivalry in 65 iconic images", "Liverpool v Manchester United: The bitter rivalry", "Man United v Liverpool rivalry in quotes", "Rival Fans Vandalise Old Trafford", etc., in major newspapers), not just passing mention of the word rivalry interspersed with some stats and some individual game coverage. A sports rivalry is a small subculture unto itself which can be written about as its own subject, not just the bare fact of two teams playing some games against each other (even if a sponspor pins a promotional name on the game series). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you are misunderstanding the point being made in the first source. Auburn is mainly known for football and has a lot of rivalries due to its long football history. In men's basketball, that is not the case, and many who are new to following the team may not have realized that UAB (a team that is not very significant to Auburn in football) has much more history with Auburn in men's basketball. The source itself is obviously a fansite so it doesn't meet the criteria but I think the rundown is good enough to be worth including in the article anyway.

Also, all of the games between Auburn and UAB are regular season, non-exhibition games. Are you familiar with how the college basketball season is structured?

And, frankly, if your criteria for a valid college basketball rivalry is one that garners equally significant coverage as a Premier League rivalry, then you may as well have almost all of the rest removed. AuburnShuffle (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A website suggesting that some basketball competitions might turn into a "rivalry" to, um, rival that in football isn't encyclopedic material, per WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. And, yes, most of the rest of the articles on the alleged "rivalries" should be deleted. That's why they're all coming up for AfD. All sport competition involves "rivalry" of a general nature, pretty much by definition, but "a rivalry" as thing unto itself is not encyclopedia material unless there is a lot of significant, independent, and non-local coverage. Otherwise it's like writing about local bands and restaurants. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this rivalry – defined not only as a "rivalry" in the "competitive" sense, but also as an annual series of official matchups –– meets WP:GNG. A quick WP:BEFORE search would have revealed many in-depth sources over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time (several of which have now been added to this article): "UAB, Auburn Begin Friendly Cage Rivalry" (about the first game in 1982); "Auburn, UAB renew entertaining rivalry" (1986); "Eagles: AU–UAB is healthy" (1990); "It's time to get reacquainted – Auburn–UAB: old rivalry, new faces" (1994); and "Lots of firsts should add a touch of drama to Auburn–UAB rivalry" (1996). Understand that not everyone likes basketball, sports, Alabama, or sports rivalry/match series articles, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to !delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With all due respect, none of these sources appear to be significant, independent coverage of the rivalry itself. All of the sources you've added are routine game previews with no WP:SIGCOV of the rivalry itself beyond rehashing the results of previous games and quotes from the teams coaches, which it can be argued leads to independence concerns. I'm a huge college basketball fan and would have no issues keeping this article if WP:SIGCOV can be found, but WP:FAN isn't a good enough reason to keep any article. Let'srun (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read the articles, there are plenty of facts and figures independent of the coaches' quotes which are reported by quite a wide range of newspapers. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let'srun - Can you please go into the issues with each of the sources? Specifically, the claims about these not being independent? What connections should we be aware of here between these teams and The Dothan Eagle/The Alabama Journal/The Birmingham Post? KatoKungLee (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The original sources are enough. What are the issues exactly with 1, 2, 3 and 4? KatoKungLee (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 is a fan blog, 2 is a routine game preview where the "rivalry" is a passing mention, 3 is not independent (as it is a interview of one of the teams coaches) and does not mention any rivalry, while 4 is also not independent as it is primarily interviewing one of the teams coaches. Let'srun (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 - There is nothing wrong with a site that is focused on covering certain teams. I'm not seeing a brief mention in the 2nd one, that would be a sentence. For #3, the person in the article was 13 years removed from UAB and was coaching Ole Miss. Again, I see no issues with the 4th one. It seems like you are looking for articles that aren't written by anyone who covers the team regularly, has never had any affiliation with the team at any point in time and isn't interviewing anyone. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect assertion. I am looking for WP:GNG level sources written by anyone who doesn't have a direct connection to the subject, which can include team beat writers. The third source doesn't even mention any rivalry, beyond the independence concerns. Interviews aren't GNG sufficient, and if you don't know that you should not be voting at AfD. Let'srun (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an unreasonable standard (and slightly incoherent) and shows why it's probably important for you @Let'srun to either 1) take a break and slow down with AfDs and PRODs, and/or 2) get some more experience in other areas of Wikipedia, especially in creating content and making edits to mainspace. We all appreciate the hard work you have put in to deletion-related activities, but lately some of your PRODs and comments are starting to look and sound a bit "off". Most importantly you have to demonstrate respect for others per WP:AGF; a bit of humility goes a long way if you are trying to build consensus, and the whole point of the AfD discussion is to build consensus. What might help is to limit yourself to three comments per AfD. You need to have confidence that if you are correct, others will recognize this and support your argument including the closer, and remember it's not a !vote-counting exercise. It's also important to be able to admit when you are wrong and just relax and let go. We all make mistakes and an important part of being smart is to know what you don't know. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is substantial disagreement over the quality of the sources. I'll note that this often happens with sources that appear to be interviews which are not always disallowed as RS, it depends on the surrounding content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A few obscure newspapers calling it a rivalry doesn't make it so. Also, "least appreciated", "friendly" and "entertaining" are not an indication of a noteworthy rivalry. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: "friendly" only applied to the first match and all sports is entertainment. I actually came to this AfD discussion thinking I was going to !vote delete, and was surprised to find so much focused secondary coverage about the rivalry. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a viable reason to delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I didn't use IDONTLIKEIT. Obscure newspapers I said, and obscure newspapers I meant: The Dothan Eagle and The Anniston Star are both in Alabama and both only publish three times a week, The Johnson City Press gets no press, and College and Magnolia is a publication about the Auburn Tigers. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So? All of that is irrelevant to determining the notability of this subject. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with @Clarityfiend--Jasulan.T ^{TT me} 15:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the significant coverage in reliable sources presented by Cielquiparle and KatoKungLee, plus these two AL.com stories; whether the sources are considered "obscure" in a voter's eyes is irrelevant. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title of that first reference is "UAB-Auburn on its way to becoming full-blown basketball rivalry". On its way, not there, so not particularly convincing. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Classic WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL material. I could write articles for various newspapers claiming that Cardi B and MC Lyte "on their way to becoming full-blown rap rivals" but that doesn't mean WP should have an article called "Cardi B–MC Lyte rap rivalry". This stuff is just fancruft. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, you both ignore the rest of my comment and all the other sources... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made a source table for everything currently in the article. Up to you on how to interpret it. Conyo14 (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis by User:Conyo14

Source assessment by User:Conyo14
[10]	SB Nation is a BLP source, but the author (Brian Spurlock) is a USA Today sports author. Y
[11]	Local newspaper separate from Auburn or Birmingham Y
[12]	Press company in Tennessee. Y
[13]	Fairly significant coverage Y
[14]	Third Alabama source outside the two cities Y
[15]	WP:BLOG and the source is mostly interview N
[16]	Partial
[17]	Doesn't speak to the tone of a rivalry ?
[18]	WP:ROUTINE N
[19]	WP:ROUTINE N
[20]	WP:ROUTINE N
[21]	WP:ROUTINE N
[22]	WP:ROUTINE N

Keep passes WP:GNG with the above mentioned sources. Alvaldi (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the in-depth analysis of SMcCandlish. Will every pair of neighbouring colleges with a varsity team end up as a "rivalry" article? The purpose of NRIVALRY is to ensure the only "rivalry" articles we have are those with a well documented history of such. In 2017, one fringe outlet described it as "on its way to becoming full-blown basketball rivalry". I doubt the six years passed since then have created a body of coverage sufficient to qualify as a documented history of rivalry. Owen× ☎ 14:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There still is no strong emerging consensus regarding the question of the sources, hoping a second relist can help avoid a "no consensus" close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. Agree with eval analysis of SMcCandlish. This seems manufactured for promo/booster purposes. Owen× points out above significant information from a source. Not seeing any sources showing this meets guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 05:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is enough significant coverage to pass GNG based on Conyo14's source analysis above. Frank Anchor 16:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Fish

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

He is successful, but doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; he seems notable and has worked on quite a few critically acclaimed games, but it seems to be fairly hard to find reliable sources on him. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 22:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note that all three sources currently in the article are dead (at least for me). Mr. Fish is visible at various video game fan pages such as [23], but I can find no in-depth and reliable coverage of his video game work. Therefore, the article is serving as a basic resume and is not supported by notability. As for Mr. Fish's connection to Dick Dale, he is not mentioned at Dale's article and he appears to be much younger than Dale, so he was probably a late-period sideman when Dale went on non-notable nostalgia tours. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

André Duval

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

He doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Moldova women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viorica Tonu

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

Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, and this was the closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches. JTtheOG (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 12:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz DiFiore

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

She doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG, I couldn't find reliable, good quality sources. No obvious WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is not notable and does not meet the WP:BIO Micheal Kaluba (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Comment.~~ She has an NZ On Screen biography which generally means some level of notability (although I don't know enough about how they select candidates for profiles to assess fully). She also produced a series called INSiDE which won an International Emmy for Best Short-Form Series in 2021. I'd like to do some more research before making a call, but commenting in the meantime while I have some capacity so I won't forget. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to delete. I haven't been able to find any additional coverage of her looking at the usual WP:BEFORE searches, Wikipedia Library and New Zealand newspaper databases, and the online sources are largely passing mentions. I agree she doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO criteria. Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diyora Erkinova

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

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. The subject made a single appearance for her national team as a teenager five years ago. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uzbekistan. JTtheOG (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 12:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: not notable and not likely to become notable, redirection seems sensible. Akakievich (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn per WP:SK1 point 3, and all current !votes have been to keep. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Central Building (Seattle)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment two offline print sources are listed. If these are non-trivial independent RS, the GNG is met regardless of what you do or do not see on-line, correct? Were you able to see and evaluate these? Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the two you are referring to is the one by Walt Crowley and Paul Dorpat; I added it after the nomination was made. It's on Google Books; I didn't include a link because the page-specific link didn't seem to work. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historic/landmark building, helpful info here. I am currently traveling internationally, so I'm limited in my ability to further expand the entry at this moment beyond what has already been added since nomination. Surely a search in the Seattle Times archives would allow inclusion of more details, including management, sales, tenants, etc., and the linked source has a lot more info re: description/design. Entry should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 09:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks to have been designated, so would fall under "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable." Espresso Addict (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Espresso Addict. Notable per heritage. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per city landmark designation. There's plenty of sources available for a century-old building that has survived in a major American downtown. Sounder Bruce 03:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per excellent ponits above. Thanks for proving me wrong. Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Boleyn, not many editors withdraw their nom when it becomes obvious that improvements and points for keep have been made. Most "fight on" until people are bickering and tiring of the discussion. Appreciate your principled editing. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+1. While I don't think the nom was necessary, I appreciate your comment and willingness to withdraw here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UCCU Crosstown Clash

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary outlets. Let'srun (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that there are not secondary sources that have covered this rivalry, for example:
- women's soccer
noted as crosstown clash in headline, https://www.deseret.com/2017/9/23/20620085/uvu-soccer-wolverines-drop-uccu-crosstown-clash-to-byu-3-0

noted as crosstown clash in headline, https://www.ksl.com/article/46394883/byu-pressure-too-much-for-wolverines-in-uccu-crosstown-clash

noted as crosstown rival in story, https://www.ksl.com/article/50722528/baileys-brace-powers-no-7-byu-womens-soccer-to-6-1-win-over-utah-valley

- women's basketball
noted as rival in story, https://kslsports.com/507606/byu-womens-basketball-lauren-gustin-utah-valley-game-recap/

- men's basketball
noted as rivalry in story, https://www.ksl.com/article/50534753/utah-valley-holds-byu-to-36-shooting-for-2nd-straight-win-over-cougars

noted as crosstown clash in headline, https://kslsports.com/473875/utah-valley-upsets-no-12-byu-in-overtime-crosstown-clash/

noted as rivalry in subheadline, https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/against-utah-valley-no-12-byu-faces-second-straight-rivalry-game/

noted as crosstown rival in story, https://www.abc4.com/sports/utah-valley-upsets-byu-again-75-60/

noted as rival school in story, https://news.yahoo.com/former-byu-guard-tanner-toolson-163057123.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeppsna (talk • contribs) 03:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, Basketball, and Utah. Let'srun (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources provided by Jeppsna above, in the order given: Local news (Deseret News, Salt Lake City), uses term "Crosstown Clash", but has nothing about rivalry, and has no in-depth coverage of a rivalry/clash, just highlights from a particular game. Local news (KSL-5 TV, in SLC), uses term "Crosstown Clash", but has nothing about rivalry, and has no in-depth coverage of a rivalry/clash, just stats on a particular game and lots of quotoids from coach and players. Local KSL again, does not use "Crosstown Clash", does claim rivalry, but there is no in-depth coverage of rivalry, just stats on a particular game. Local KSL again, , does not use "Crosstown Clash", does claim rivalry, but there is no in-depth coverage of rivalry, just stats on a particular game, and some discussion of a team's seasonal highlights. Local KSL again, does not use "Crosstown Clash", does claim rivalry, but there is no in-depth coverage of rivalry, just highlights from one game, and some player and coach interview material; this one is of more interest than the others because it quotes a player saying "rivaly". Local KSL yet again, uses term "Crosstown Clash", does not mention rivaly, and has no in-depth coverage of clash/rivalry, just highlights from one game. At last, a non-local source (CBS Sports): does not use "Crosstown Clash", does claim rivalry, but there is no in-depth coverage of rivalry, just stats on a particular game, does quote a coach using the term "rivalry". More local news (ABC4 TV, Provo, Utah), does not use "Crosstown Clash", does claim rivalry, but there is no in-depth coverage of rivalry, just highlights from one game. Finally, Yahoo! News source that looked like it could have been national, but nope, it's Deseret News again being republished; does not use "Crosstown Clash" and does not mention a sports rivalry, but uses the term "rival" in a different sense (of schools in the same area competing for enrollees).
The other sources already cited in the article are similarly weak. I can do a run-down of them like the above if anyone really wants it. The short versions is they are either all local news, or are organizational sites being cited for material unrelated to a rivalry, and none of them provide in-depth coverage of the rivalry as such. The closest to this is this one, which covers a three-game series. Another is almost in the ballpark; it's regional coverage and compares the writer's personal experience of two "Clash" games five years apart, but is really about him and the particulars of the two games, not about "the rivalry".
What we can gather from all the source material is this: There is a manufactured "sports rivalry" between these schools, consisting of a series of non-league (exhibition) games sponsored by a local credit union. Locally it is sometimes (but not consistently) called "Crosstown Clash" (this may actually be an official name provided by the sponsor; that's not really clear). One national-level source (not using the "Crosstown Clash" name for it), has said there is such a rivalry. But there is no in-depth coverage of the rivalry, even in the local news. The near-total lack of any significant national coverage indicates this is a local-interest matter. Ergo, this is not an encyclopedically WP:Notable topic and cannot have its own article. Some of the material should probably be merged in WP:SUMMARY style into the school articles under their athletics sections. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some info should be included in the school program articles, but given SMcCandlish's analysis the sources don't indicate the notability required for a standalone article. funplussmart (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 17:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bayfair Shopping Centre

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added a few references detailing it's redevelopment in the late 2010s, and am satisfied that it is significant in-depth coverage. —Panamitsu (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn’t just a collection of corner stores. It’s a massive mall, as big as they come in NZ. Schwede 66 17:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more sources exist. Can be improved. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: repeated coverage in the NZ Herald establishes notability. Owen× ☎ 15:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford Esquires

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

Some local coverage, but I couldn't establish that they meet WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I found an article about it on the BBC but that is far from the three required since the article itself has MySpace as its only secondary "website" (I dont use MySpace so I cant tell if it is truly a secondary source, but I doubt it matters) ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 21:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly tour dates popping up, minimal coverage of the pub itself Mach61 (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sourcing is insufficient. If the target returns to mainspace, happy to restore the history for a merge. Star Mississippi 15:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead: Descent

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

Non-notable book. Entrierly article is a plot summary, upon looking for coverage all I found was articles announcing that the book was in produciton. No WP:SIGCOV Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Here's a couple reviews:

Booklist [24]
Three-to-four paragraphs in Abilene Reporter-News [25]

I could see a merge of the set of Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead series of novels into one page as well, but that outcome is probably out of scope for this AfD. Possible ATD is a merge to The Walking Dead (comic book) § Novels —siro χ o 04:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The two sources found by siroxo are sufficient for the book to meet the notability guideline. The first source is a detailed review of the book. The second source discusses the book and the series as a whole. Like siroxo, I could also see a merge to an article about the series but agree that it out of scope of this AfD as no series article currently exists.
Cunard (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: If I indpedently created a Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead page could a merge be made into it. The page doesnt exit right so its not a valid outcome, if the page was made during the afd could it be merged into it? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs), since the second source discusses both this book and the series as a whole, I am fine with Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead: Descent being merged into a book series article. If a series article is created (and if no other sources are found for this book), I am fine with and supportive of a merge being done even if the AfD is closed as "keep". Cunard (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its been made, but I am struggling to find sources. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the page was previously made, then draftified due to CV issues: Draft:Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. Nothing found meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth. Source eval:
[26], Library promo, titled "Plenty of zany zombie action at your local library"
[27], Database entry from Booklist.
[28], Upcoming release announcment, "For more ‘Walking Dead’ intel, follow Dalton on Twitter".

// Timothy :: talk 23:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are a lot of options being floated around in this discussion but no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Abilene Reporter article has just a passing mention of the book. Booklist is more substantial but not what I would count as SIGCOV. EW.com link is just an announcement news, not in-depth coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burrows Court

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simply per what's already in the article, keep. Uncle G (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG as many sources were found (so many that I haven't quite finished with all the fixes). The building is covered extensively by Nottingham Evening Post over a period of decades, showing WP:SUSTAINED interest (and literally impossible and unnecessary to include every single piece). So I spent some time looking for coverage in other sources, and that exists as well, like this BBC News article focusing on lack of security and drug dealing at the property, and poor upkeep of the building by the council. Plus there are several others which have been added to the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per excellent points above. Thanks for contributing to this and proving me wrong. Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bratenahl Place

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Has been in CAT:NN for over 6 years. Boleyn (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A shame there are no sources, because this is a well written starter article. However, nothing is substantiated by secondary sources, so verification is an issue. So too is notability, as significant and indepth secondary sources are required to establish notability. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A2199 road

AfDs for this article:

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

Per last AfD, this just doesn't meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn, the last AfD discussion was in January 2012 (almost 12 years ago). The article has improved massively since then if you compare revisions. Roads4117 (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous AfD. No coverage in reliable sources, including its better known name of Croxted Road, neither of which appears to be a reliable redirect term. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All this article needs is some more citations to reliable sources (like Google Maps) and some more information on it. This does definitely have potential. I would be open to the idea of moving it to a draft, and make changes over there. Roads4117 (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth doesn't count towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back and WaddlesJP13, according to WP:GOOGLEMAPS Google Maps and Google Street View may be useful for some purposes, including finding and verifying geographic coordinates and other basic information like street names. However, especially for objects like boundaries (of neighborhoods, allotments, etc.), where other reliable sources are available they should be preferred over Google Maps and Google Street View. According to this, you are allowed to use this to verify street names, coordinates etc. Roads4117 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roads4117: But does it verify notability? Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that it can be used for that, but consensus is also that it doesn't count towards notability. Lots of sources can be used which don't count towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Requires more participation. As an aside, "some more citations to reliable sources (like Google Maps)" - Google Maps is not considered generally reliable, per WP:GOOGLEMAPS.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strewth, we deleted Earlham Road in Norwich despite it's having a sunken bus, a cathedral, a university, a plethora of listed buildings and some historical documents. All we have for A2199 is a discussion of how we pass petrol stations rapidly followed by bridges, with the occasional roundabout for added excitement. If we have nothing to say about this road, then we shouldn't say it. We are simply not a bollard-by-bollard lamp-post detailed road description service. Elemimele (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele this page is absolutely no different to 99% of three-digit or four-digit articles on Wikipedia. If you delete this page, then you would have to delete the rest, otherwise it would be unfair this article gets special treatment compared to the rest, and also it would be a complete utter waste of time to delete hundreds and thousands of articles. This message also applies to Ritchie's comments above. Roads4117 (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is true it wouldn't be a waste of time at all, improving wikipedia is not a waste of time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back Yes but it would take years to do it and there is it would be easier and quicker just to improve somebody's work rather than destroy it. Roads4117 (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The argument you are making is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Keeping this article because deleting other non notable articles would take time is not a policy reason to keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have no deadline. If its non-notable its not improvable to the point of being a high quality article by definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for my !vote delete to be treated as a redirect as suggested by others. @Roads4117:, (1) I'm not convinced that a multitude of small articles is the right way to present information. It is often better to bring a lot of not-very-notable things together into one over-arching article, and (2) ultimately we're an encyclopaedia, not a database. We're here to take subjects on which multiple people have written, and summarise them for readers who want an overview. I'm afraid that for any road article, if a road hasn't been written-about in reasonable depth by several people, there is nothing to summarise. Information like that will no doubt find its corner of the internet, but this isn't it. Elemimele (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele No, that isn't so! Earlham Road was already kept twice. First time as a straight keep and recently as no consensus. I remember because I participated in the 2023 debate. In 2005 I was less active in AfDs. gidonb (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme: per result of previous AfD. Nothing has changed to make this road notable since then. Owen× ☎ 15:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Owen× and there is nothing notable with 99% of other three-digit and four-digit road articles. Like I said earlier in response to Elemimele's comments, why should this get special treatment compared to everything else. Roads4117 (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is nothing notable with 99% of other three-digit and four-digit road articles they should be deleted or merged, why should they get special treatment compared to everything else? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme Looking for any articles on the history of the road or any past or future road projects hasn't yielded anything other than routine coverage of run-of-the-mill events that happen anywhere. Such coverage is rare on relatively insignificant roads like this. As for using Google Maps as a source like Roads4117 mentioned, the issue isn't that there aren't any sources as much as there aren't any sources that prove notability. Google Maps wouldn't really prove anything other than that the road exists. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect, just not seeing the sort of coverage that indicates notability and there are no compelling arguments for notability presented otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. Khan Tower

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete This why we have WP:NOTCRYSTAL, as I see no evidence, eight yeas later, that this building was even started, much less that it will ever be completed to specs. Mangoe (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1010 Mass

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Geography, and Washington, D.C.. Skynxnex (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one source cited isn't WP:SIGCOV, and most of what I could find myself were real estate listings. If anyone finds sources, happy to change (ping me) EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1001–1011 Jefferson Street

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") This has been in CAT:NN for 2 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Geography, and Delaware. Skynxnex (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source cited is a dead link -- and when that link was live, it was to a page on the building developer's own website. So there are no independent sources provided, nor can I find any good sources myself. This building is described on this page merely as a "vision" since 2017, and there is no indication here that it is actually going to be built at all, much less any time soon. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 800 Apartments

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Geography, and Kentucky. Skynxnex (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to work on the article this weekend to see if I can get it up to snuff. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 08:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on the article some today, and may have already satisfied WP:NBUILDING, but at any rate, I will add more tomorrow. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more work to do in the article, but in my estimation, the article already meets notability criteria, with multiple reliable sources, supporting the building's superlatives (particularly that 1) the building was tallest in Louisville, a top-50 US city, for a decade; 2) it won the first FHA Honor Award; 3) it was designed by a notable architect) and other aspects of the property. There's plenty of in-depth coverage of this building (at the very least by Kentucky's largest newspaper) over the years, which can be seen in newspapers.com searches. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to Stefan's excellent editing establishing notability. TH1980 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination I can't disagree with Stefen's excellent points. Thanks for proving me wrong. Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

375 Hudson Street

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

It is an existing building, and some sources mention it, but not showing significance. Has been in CAT:NN for over 2 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Geography, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters with the option of merging encyclopedic content. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Chambler

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

Non notable Walking Dead character. The biography is just WP:fancruft, the devolopement section is just episode reviews which I feel is boarderline WP:REFBOMBING, I went looking for sources to add and all I found was casting news, interviews, and things reiterating said interveiws Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. BOZ (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list, while deletion would be my prefered outcome, I see that due to this characters role in the series her name would be a valid serch term. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Reception seems built from mentions in passing (WP:SIGCOV failure). It's telling she is not named in a single reference's heading. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge with her actual article Alanna Masterson. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why should the page redirect to the actress's page and not the cahracter list? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect to the character article, per WP:ATD. It doesn't make sense to combine fiction with the real actress. Those topics overlap, but are clearly different. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. There isn't clear consensus on whether there is merge-worthy content, but this discussion does not preclude moving some content to the target. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noah (The Walking Dead)

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

Non notable Walking Dead character. The biography is just WP:fancruft, the devolopement section is just episode reviews which I feel is boarderline WP:REFBOMBING, I went looking for sources to add and all I found was casting news, interviews, and things reiterating said interveiws. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NYC Guru (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. BOZ (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the list would be much better due to there really isnt anything on the page that we would need. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to KKJB. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KIWB-LD

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

Non-notable LPTV; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Idaho. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge details into KKJB, which is Cocola Broadcasting's full-power station in Boise; this cluster is better served with one article detailing the LPTV sisters in a shortened table form below KKJB's info. Nate • (chatter) 19:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Even though these were redirected by the author to circumvent deletion, WP:IAR applies due to copyright concerns. Any editor is free to create fresh redirects as needed. ✗plicit 01:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Call Me A Donut Wall

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

Fails WP:NTVEP & WP:GNG, non-notable tv coverage. ASUKITE 18:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 18:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles (sorry...) ~~It will take me a moment to tag them, but I should have them tagged in a while.~~

Merge and redirect all to Call Me Kat. BD2412 T 20:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that in my nomination, but that's the outcome I was hoping for myself, just a bit much for me to be bold about and do. Just wanted to note that I support this idea as it might save a lot of the editor's work (even if it creates a bit more) - I could see an episode list with the synopses included in a column, or perhaps a separate episodes list article. nevermind, I'm leaning towards delete again, but it looks like the user already started redirecting the articles anyways. ASUKITE 20:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The likely target already has such a structure, it is just not well-filled in. BD2412 T 21:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. The only sources I could find are routine coverage of the fact that it was the series finale or commenting on the guest appearance of Russell Dickerson. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Striking my !vote as I voted using the XFD tool and didn't come to this page first where the other episodes are listed. I will weigh in after evaluating those articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge all to Call Me Kat I have found very few RSes that have reviewed individual episodes, and each episode I found appears to be covered in only one RS. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator has changed all of these articles into Redirects to the TV series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every one of these is a copyright violation: Orma.iasfbo.inaf.it:7007/~mauro/TV/PDF/CALLMEKAT.pdf

Redirecting them is insufficient. They need to be deleted. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. I never found that. I'd say this could be speedied at that rate. Having had a second look at the creator's talk page, there have been some similar issues. Edited my reply above, I should have just given this more time. ASUKITE 03:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see whether there is more support/insistence that a Deletion is necessary or if these pages can exist as Redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect all, per COPYVIO and other issues noted above.

JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect each — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David D. Mandarich

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

Creator contested BLPPROD by Fram. I am seeing nothing to show that this individual is notable on their own, all I can see is PR from the company or profiles, no significant coverage of the individual in reliable sources. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 18:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, and Companies. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 18:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Schminnte's analysis. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. I honestly was about to CSD the page under criterion A7 but the nominator beat me to it. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Obimo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akpotoro

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

I couldn't find the sources to confirm WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. It has been in CAT:NN for 3 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this is verified to exist as a community, it should redirect to Obimo. BD2412 T 18:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Obimo per above. Fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 12:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23rd Street viaduct

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

This has mentions, but doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for over 3 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to West Bottoms, as a feature of that neighborhood. BD2412 T 18:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing !vote due to improvements. No longer a clear case for merging. BD2412 T 15:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even knowing that it was constructed by Kansas City Structural Steel Inc. I could not turn up even a basic source for, say, the construction date or structural type. I cannot find any in-depth documentation of this bridge. The Topeka one by the same name, some. Uncle G (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncle G The bridge seems like it was built before one of the approaches was ready. It's a little hard to trace. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just dumped 17 references into this from Kansas City newspapers, and someone a bit more familiar with this area will probably do a better job than I did. Note: "West Kansas Avenue Bridge" is another structure (also in need of article help). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep excellent work by Sammie Brie in expanding the article. Garuda3 (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good work, Sammi. @Boleyn and BD2412: opinions on Sammi's sources? Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 06:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, it seems a bit WP:ROUTINE for reporting on the lifespan of a bridge, but the fact that there was at least one reported dispute about its intended use shifts me out of thinking that this is a clear case for merging. BD2412 T 15:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a case of WP:HEY. Seems to meet WP:GNG now. Great work by Sammi in improving the article. S5A-0043^Talk 16:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources added show this easily meets the GNG. Great work by all improving this one. Let'srun (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5 Taian Dao

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

I am aware I may be missing sources through not reading in other languages, but I couldn't find sources to show this building is notable. Has been in CAT:NN for two and a half years. Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Business, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. Building is a building. The article links to the List of tallest buildings in China, but this falls far short of qualifying for that list (or even a hypothetical List of tallest buildings in Tianjin). Absent sources that are beyond routine reporting of the construction of any commercial building, this does not, ahem, rise to the requisite level of notability. BD2412 T 18:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While I note Cunard's submission of five sources for consideration, all other contributions - including those subsequent to this submission - are aligned for deletion. Consensus exists to delete here. Daniel (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Paranormal Journey:Into the Unknown

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

An article created by an WP:SPA on a show that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. The article has a heavy promotional tone, but even beyond that, it does not appear to be notable at all. Despite the lofty claims that is "took the media by storm", the only coverage included in the article is from local news coverage from the area the production was from, and several non-reliable sources. Searches turned up no kind of coverage in actual reliable sources, or any kind of reviews. The four episodes listed also seem to be the only four that were produced and released, so it seems doubtful that any new coverage will come in the future. Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Paranormal, and Kentucky. Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage that enables it to pass GNG, ~~it's WP:TOOSOON for mainspace article,~~ it appears to have been cancelled in 2017 after 4 episodes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only one of the sources cited (the first one) appears to be independent RS. Too much junk comes up when I try to find more secondary coverage. One name-check in local media does not suffice for passing WP:GNG. And while I know it's not a guideline for deletion, the article is incompetently-written and barely grammatical, clearly not the work of someone here to build an encyclopedia; likely a SPA as the nom suggested. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Thornburg, Kate (2018-05-08). "Amazon Prime Paranormal Show Films at Winchester Café". The News-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2023-11-25.
  The article notes: "... Season 3 of the Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown. The Amazon Prime original program is hosted by Gavin Kelly and Paula Purcell and filmed overnight on April 28, 2018 at the Para Café. The show premiered as a new original series on October 31, 2017 and is a non-staged, non-scripted program with no camera tricks, just real paranormal investigations following Kelly and Purcell as they investigate haunted asylums, jails, battlefields, and museums along with many other locations around the country. Kelly and Purcell look for the most haunted locations in the United States to investigate and collect evidence using video, photography, and EVP’s (electronic voice phenomenon). They specifically work to debunk so-called hauntings and to collect the data needed to prove whether or not the locations they visit are truly haunted or not. Their investigative process combined with Purcell’s research into the history of the locations, the team’s scientific methods, and completely unscripted format make the program stand out amid the plethora of seemingly similar shows that have gained in popularity in recent years."
2. Carver, Hannah (2018-06-07). "Is Benton Farm haunted? Paranormal investigators say maybe; show to air on Amazon TV next year". NKyTribune. Archived from the original on 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2023-11-25.
  The article notes: "Delving into the some of the world’s most mysterious phenomena, the crew from “The Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown” will feature the Benton Farmhouse in its season three. The show, which first aired on Amazon TV on Halloween of 2017, features Gavin Kelly, Paula Purcell, and their team. Together they work to explore reportedly haunted locations, seeking proof of the existence of life after death. ... The second season of “The Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown” will air this fall. The episode at Benton Farms is scheduled for the third season, which comes out October 31, 2019."
3. Longworth, Michele (2017-10-26). "Quest for the paranormal at the Massac County Courthouse". Metropolis Planet. Archived from the original on 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2023-11-25.
  The article notes: "Paducah paranormal investigators’ show premieres Oct. 31 on Amazon Prime. ... After their brief visit, the two decided they wanted to go back to film an episode of their show Paranormal Journey Into the Unknown. ... Both Kelly and Purcell have taped six episodes of their show, which will air on Amazon Prime beginning Tuesday, Oct. 31. According to Kelly, the original series on Amazon Prime is “testing the waters.” Netflix has already indicated if their show receives good ratings on Amazon, Netflix might also pick up their shows."
4. Hughes, Pat (2017-09-06). "Hartford City's haunted will be in new Amazon series". Hartford City News Times. Archived from the original on 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2023-11-25.
  The article notes: "Paranormal host Gavin Kelly and historian Paula Purcell are teaming up for Amazon’s Prime’s new paranormal television series “Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown.” The series’ second season is set to air in February and will feature Hartford City’s Monroe House, the old Hartford City Jail and the Speak Easy in different segments of the show."
5. Camp, Jodi (2019-04-11). "Amazon TV series paranormal team investigates Octagon Hall". Franklin Favorite. Archived from the original on 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2023-11-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Last month, the paranormal show “The Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown” through Amazon, visited Octagon Hall, the historical and paranormal antebellum house in Simpson County. ... The shows season one is already available on Amazon with season two coming out at the end of 2019 and season three available in March 2020."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm really not convinced by these sources, because they are, like the one I mentioned in my nomination, from extremely local papers just reporting on the areas the show filmed in. Not only that, a lot of these contain information that seems wildly inaccurate, referring to seasons and episodes that as far as I can find, never actually existed. (Honestly, I can't even find any evidence that the show was ever actually shown on "Amazon Prime", as stated in several of the articles here, and not just available to purchase via Amazon's digital store as they are now). The niche coverage of these publications, and the fact that several of them are reporting on episodes that were never actually made, make me extremely dubious that these would satisfy the notability requirements for this show. Rorshacma (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Doing a quick comparison, only one of the locations mentioned in the local papers above was actually made into an episode of the show. It seems like these two went to a bunch of places to film footage, told the local papers about their lofty (and seemingly exaggerated) plans of creating a multi-season series that would feature their town/county, and got a little write up about these supposed future episodes in the local papers that never actually happened. It seems a lot of the information the papers were reporting on were just what the duo that made the series told them, which has proven to be largely be untrue. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears they were still filming episodes when the series was cancelled, or the distribution deal fell through, or something happened that made it impossible to continue. The fact we can't find any industry coverage containing details about the show means it wasn't considered notable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources consistently say that The Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown was shown on Amazon Prime. This Amazon Prime search^{archive.today} for the show clearly lists The Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown as an Amazon Prime show. It aired for one season and had four episodes.
The Paranormal Journey has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources in Indiana and Kentucky newspapers. The News-Gazette provided detailed analysis about the show, "Their investigative process combined with Purcell's research into the history of the locations, the team’s scientific methods, and completely unscripted format make the program stand out amid the plethora of seemingly similar shows that have gained in popularity in recent years."
The show meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline through the significant coverage in reliable sources. The notability guideline does not exclude sources that are based out of cities where the show did filming. The notability guideline does not say that the show's cancellation (and whether sources covered the cancellation) takes away from the show's notability.
The sources are not inaccurate. They discuss how the show filmed future episodes and was planning to air future seasons. That those episodes did not air makes the information in the articles overtaken by later events rather than factually inaccurate.
Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That Prime Search is what I meant though - its not a "Amazon Prime Show" in the sense that it was produced by Amazon Prime the way The Boys (TV series) is. It is just available for digital purchase on the Amazon Prime service the way that every other show and movie available on VOD for purchase or rental through Amazon is. That's a bit of a different beast. Rorshacma (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazon Prime search lists the show, while The News-Gazette calls it an "Amazon Prime original program". No source or anything I've found contradicts this statement. Cunard (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough to have gotten a mention on the news websites of Hollywood Reporter, Variety, or Deadline from 2016 to present. Not on the List of ended Amazon Prime Video original programming (because it's not an Amazon show). This is a limited web series using Amazon Prime Direct as a distributor to sell to the public and using Wikipedia for search engine promotion (see WP:NOTADVERTISING). Links to review articles can go on its IMDb page in the External Reviews section there. I have no objection to the article being updated and republished someday if the show returns and generates the needed noteworthiness for inclusion in an encyclopedia. 5Q5|^✉ 14:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline does not require a television series "to have gotten a mention on the news websites of Hollywood Reporter, Variety, or Deadline".
  Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline does not require a television series to be an Amazon show or to appear on List of ended Amazon Prime Video original programming.
  Although this doesn't matter for notability, no sources or evidence has been provided verifying that the show is "using Amazon Prime Direct as a distributor" rather than being an "Amazon Prime original program" (source: the 2018 The News-Gazette article) Cunard (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The phrase "Amazon Prime original program" merely refers to any program offered first on Amazon's streaming service, whether produced by Amazon Studios or from an outside source. Amazon owns IMDb. Amazon Studios is not listed as one of the producers of The Paranormal Journey:Into the Unknown on IMDb because it is not an Amazon production and if it was, the media coverage would be national and much more than local. 5Q5|^✉ 12:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The points of WP:NFOE, the specific notability guideline for movies, are all indiviually not met:

The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. - Such did not turn up.
Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. - Dates range only from 2017-2019.
The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release - Dates range only from 2017-2019.
The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. - Such did not turn up.
The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. - Such did not turn up.
The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. - Such did not turn up.
The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. - Such did not turn up.
The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. - Such did not turn up.

Finally, as for the other notability guidelines, the sources are clearly WP:ROUTINE. They only talk about the release of the movie. There are no high-profile reviews or retrospectives. They are of local interest, written in relation to the movie filming coming to their town/county and so perhaps not even qualify as WP:INDEPENDENT. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I'm not seeing a strong argument to keep, and I am seeing a persuasive argument against redirecting. If a list entry is created at some point, this discussion does not preclude a future redirect. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Spill Magazine

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

Article about an online music magazine, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMEDIA. As always, websites are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to have their significance externally validated by being the subject of WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis -- but this is referenced almost entirely to the magazine's own self-published content, either on its own website or on Google Groups copies of it, and the only third-party source is not reliable or GNG-worthy either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be the subject of coverage in sources other than itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Music, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Spill's ratings are considered notable for AnyDecentMusic? aggregation. Its three-decade existence, access to chart artists, and use in hundreds of Wikipedia articles suggests some inherent notability. Paulie302 (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires WP:GNG-worthy sourcing in third party media independent of itself, and that requirement cannot be bypassed by length of existence, access to artists or any other criterion that isn't supported by GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing's pulling up in terms of 3rd party coverage

Mach61 (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Paulie302 above, weak Keep. 30 years of existence for a magazine is very notable, and I see it quoted (I mean, OUTSIDE Wikipedia) as independent reference (see GB). But due to lack of coverage about it that I can see, redirect to List of music magazines#S would work for me, if we accept to have a non-blue item in that list.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. How do folks feel about a Redirect here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and my own search for sources. Longevity, good access to musicians, and the fact that the publication is an RS does not establish notability. Redirecting to List of music magazines would not be appropriate because the list criterion for that list is notable music magazines. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel DeWeldon

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR SmartSE (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Austria, and United States of America. SmartSE (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maryland and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 18:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NYC Guru (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no indication that this person is notable. To be honest, I'm surprised this wasn't speedied. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 00:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Das

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

Not Notable enough for its own article. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Tamil Nadu. Skynxnex (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - will set a terrible precedent for one-film character articles. Not notable. Neutral Fan (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His backstory is not revealed yet that's why he seems like a one film character. 2600:1700:78E2:9010:7131:909A:C27:2A39 (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a great prospect when only one of the cited sources seemed to have any coverage of the character, as "Leo" was mostly used to refer to the film as a whole instead of the specific character. While the character is mentioned in sources that discussed the plot of the film, that does not seem to make the subject notable considering how many articles about characters that have received the same type of coverage were not kept in the end. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not need as a character . Monhiroe (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All this is available at Leo. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no separate notability from the fiction, where it is already covered in a more proportional way. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to create a separate character article. Pinakpani (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Monokroussos

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

He exists, but I couldn't establish sources showing he meets WP:N. In CAT:NN for more than 13 years. Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sportspeople, Journalism, Internet, Indiana, Nevada, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The name is familiar to me and the article has been around for a while so I thought he might have written a few books... but no, just a few articles on websites like chessbase. Hasn't played in a US championship or represented the US at anything, hasn't won anything important. Doesn't meet the threshold of notability, per the informal WP:NCHESS criteria. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Let'srun (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NAUTHOR. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Morneau

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

WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers. As always, film directors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their films exist -- notability is not inherited, so the notability test requires evidence of significance, supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing about them and their work.
But existence is the only notability claim being attempted here, the article is completely unsourced, and even the films listed in his filmography are almost all direct-to-video B-movies whose articles are also not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for films either.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on his sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help finding references instead of asking for deletion? Which are suitable reference websites for this? There are several homonyms, so looking for the proper references is difficult. Yann (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:DIRECTOR, which states: ""People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards (..)The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)". That is the case for various films he directed. But the nominator was right concerning the sourcing at the time of nomination, the page was unsourced. Not the case anymore: I’ve added a few things for verification and coverage about him and his films in independent reliable sources; fwiw, am willing to improve the article when I have more time.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC) (edited Nov, 27)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the help with references. Yann (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: thank you for creating the page. Just a note: what homonyms are you referring to above? Don't you want to delete that bit, as I think it might belong to some other discussion? (I forgot which but I seem to remember another ongoing Afd somewhere!). Of course, feel free to leave it if you think it's important but if so, you might want to elaborate so that everyone (including me, I confess) may understand what you mean. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Half of the 10 first hits of [29] seems to concern another Louis Morneau. Yann (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Thanks for clarifying. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. No sources found which meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Article expanded since nomination.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess the article in light of recent expansion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:DIRECTOR, body of work seems to be well known for multiple reasons including for direct-to-video movies including sequels. Verifiability is not a problem thanks to expansion by Mushy Yank (with help from other editors). Given the era and the coverage that exists online, likely to be many print-only sources as well. —siro χ o 04:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2008. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lowara Madi incident

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

Too minor an incident for a stand-alone, why do we need this? Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Minor incident a decade ago, no lasting effects. You can barely find mention of it now, likely not notable. Coverage at the time was scant. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge referenced text into Ghulam Khan and Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2008 and then delete. Why throw away the data? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above sounds reasonable, but notably "merge and delete" is not a possible result. As such, something needs to be done about the original article as well. I'd suggest redirecting to Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2008, but I've no strong preference here. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2008. There is sourced info that could be useful in the parent article, but no independent notability exists for this event using criteria in WP:NEVENT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable on its own. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this seems to be a non-incident whereby one party fired some shots and the other turned around and retreated. Quite how this is an article I am unsure, but I also don't think it's sufficiently close enough to being a notable subject that there is not any need for content retention. Hence, I don't think there is an appropriate case for any merging. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether there is more support for a Deletion or a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2008. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Any editor should feel free to create a Redirect from either of these deleted page titles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Lewis (film director)

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

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

Minimally referenced WP:BLP of a filmmaker and a completely unreferenced article about his film, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for filmmakers. As always, neither filmmakers nor their films are automatically notable just because they exist -- the notability test hinges on evidence of significance, supported by WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in real media.
The attempted notability claim here is that he won an award for best editing at a minor film festival -- but film festival awards clinch notability by themselves only if they come from major, internationally prominent film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, TIFF, Venice or Sundance whose awards get widely reported by the media as news, and not if they come from minor regional film festivals for which you have to rely on IMDB for sourcing. But IMDb (which is not a reliable or notability-making source) is the only source cited in either article at all, with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage shown about either topic.
Nothing stated in either of these two articles is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help finding references instead of asking for deletion? Which are suitable reference websites for this? There are several homonyms, so looking for the proper references is difficult. Yann (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proper referencing is media coverage about him and his work in newspapers, magazines, books, film studies journals and other sources that represent a third party writing about him and his work in an analytical manner.

If you're the one who wants the article to exist, then you're the one with a responsibility to ensure that the proper references exist. You do not get to demand that other people try to find better referencing for you instead of listing it for discussion — because if better references don't exist, then what? So it's your job to ensure that you're using the proper calibre of referencing from the start, and if the proper calibre of referencing doesn't exist yet then you have to wait until it does before the article can be started. Bearcat (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Please do not lecture me. I know the rules very well. However I am not a specialist in cinema, I just found out that there was no article about this film maker, and seeing that he received several awards, I thought he is certainly notable enough. I am not from the US, so I don't know if these film festivals are notable and sufficient enough to establish notability. I suppose there were press reports when he received these awards, but I can't find them. There used to be a time when submitting an article was not so controversial. Yann (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added 3 references for Justin Lewis, and 2 for Collider, thanks to Mushy Yank. Yann (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with the bundling of this film with its director. I think two Afds and not at the same time would have been fairer but that’s just me. The director has received some awards as editor on notable films and might meet WP:CREATIVE The film has been reviewed at least here) and here So Keep.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awards are only notable enough to make their winners notable for winning them if the award itself is a notable one — that is, an award only counts as a notability claim if you can show that the media consider that award to be significant enough to report the award presentation as news, and does not count as a notability claim if media coverage about the award doesn't exist, and instead you have to "source" the award to IMDb or the award's own self-published website about itself. An award only counts as a notability claim if you can reference it to WP:GNG-worthy media coverage to establish that the award is independently considered significant, and we do not indiscriminately accept all film awards as equal notability makers. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, everyone knows that some awards are more important than other, I think, and I don't think I said the contrary (hence "might"). I never source with IMdB. Never. You're talking to the wrong person here. And, an award verified at the award entity website (Emmys, given festival, etc) is something ("self-published", no, the award cannot self-publish anything, can it? You probably mean "official"...) and counts for what it is. Coverage by other media echoing it is better, agreed, absolutely. Hence "might". But, to make things clear, I didn't !vote concerning Lewis, only his film. This kind of misunderstanding does not happen in individual Afds. Hence my disapproval of the bundling. Anyway, thank you for your message. I have no further comments. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMdB. If that is what you mean, fair: I did cite a website on this very page, above, in my comment, where the review is either copied from IMdB, as Metropolitan90 rightly indicates below, or written by a IMdB regular (not clear, but I had missed that, apologies). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His only work is Collider, the article of which is unsourced. The reviews given above are self-published and otherwise not from mainstream critics. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and perhaps written under his auspices is in my view a very unnecessary and baseless allegation given the page history and I would appreciate if you corrected it. For the record, Collider is the only film directed by him that has a WP page, yes, but it's as editor that he received awards. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG and UNRELIABLE. So many articles with Boloney sources. This is exactly why I am putting my foot down and getting involved

AaronVick (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. These articles don't have sufficient reliable, independent sources to establish that either the director or the film satisfies WP:GNG. The first review cited by Mushy Yank above is actually just a user review copied from IMDb. Of course, if the director becomes more prominent in the future, the article can be re-created as appropriate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Film only: because there’s one reliable review at least and to help the reader, as other films with that name exist, I’d like to suggest an ATD, by redirecting to List of science fiction films of the 2010s.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the reviews presented come from reliable sources. This https://www.the-other-view.com/collider.html is a blog. The other https://www.sci-fi-central.com/Database/SF/06/C0/index.php is imdb. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also from what i understand, ATD (Alternative to deletion) is meant to treat large informative articles in danger of deletion, not a stub. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure ATD has to do with the articles being a stub per se, rather with the fact that you can merge it or not. In the present case, you can, so it's rather in favour of a redirect, I should say: "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists." (WP:ATD) and "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists." (WP:ATD) I had already seen your comment on the sources above but thank you all the same, As for the sci-fi central, I have already mentioned it quoting IMdB or being authored by an IMdB regular, after Metropolitan 90's note (see above, our comments). And The Other View seems like an expert blog to me. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ to do anything. Merging or renaming or anything similar can be explored on the talk page of the article subsequent to this discussion finishing. Daniel (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Lithuania

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

The article essentially repeats what is already said in Union of Kėdainiai. Besides, the very use of the term Swedish Lithuania is WP:FRINGE, occurring only in Kotljarchuk. It is also incorrect in principle because Lithuania was not incorporated into Sweden, but some of the nobility entered into a personal union with Sweden. The article generally rubs against WP:HOAX. Marcelus (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden. Marcelus (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I notice User:Cukrakalnis made the same argument just now at Talk:Swedish Lithuania#The article name. For myself, not having reviewed the sources yet, I'll say that I am partial to articles on former administrative divisions or concepts (ex. Russian partition), but the problematic name of this article is, well, problematic. Perhaps the term is a translation of something else? I note this article exists on several other wikis. On lt wiki it is "Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1655–1657)" (Lietuvos_Didžioji_Kunigaikštystė_(1655–1657)). Swedish occupation of Lituania could be another term to consider (and or redirect). There may be something notable here (in the form of describing the functioning of Sweden-occupied/controlled GDL during that period, the brief-lived entity created by the Treaty and Union of Kėdainiai). But let's start figuring out how the entity was called; if Swedish Lithuania is not a comment name, the article should be moved to Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1655–1657). If I have time, I'll try to think more on whether this meets WP:GNG. Side note: Grand Duchy of Lithuania article does not even mention Kėdainiai; we are dealing with a pretty niche footnote topic here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. The article never says at any point that Lithuania was 'incorporated into Sweden'. It literally says that it's a protectorate of the Swedish Empire, meaning it's a separate political entity under the control of the Swedish, so the entire argument here is nothing more than a straw man.
2. Andrej Kontjarchuk mentions that Swedish-occupied Lithuania had a viceroy (Bengt Skytte) as well as a Swedish-inaugurated Lithuanian Advisory Council and no literature appears to be claiming to the contrary. If he's talking about some sort of an administration then clearly there was some sort of a political entity as well. Not everything needs to be spilt out.
3. I think that 'pretty niche footnote' problem is unreasonable given the importance of the topic in question: it was a brief period, during which the Swedish unsuccessfully tried to establish a permanent presence in Lithuania. Of course, it won't have many sources to go by.
4. There seems to be enough valid reasons for an article like Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth to exist, but not enough for this one?
SeriousThinker (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a terrible comparison, but note that Google Scholar search for PLRC gives about 40 hits; while the one for Swedish Lithuania, just two. I am sympathetic to the topic here and would prefer to see it saved, but we need more sources, including for the name of this entity. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish-inaugurated Lithuanian Advisory Council and no literature appears to be claiming to the contrary, no literature mention existence of such a council, because... such council never existed, even Kotljarchuk admits that: Neither the act of the union nor the text of the public declaration had mentioned the Council (p. 143). Simply put, the royal governor (who was initially De La Gardie, not Skytte) was given 3 delegates from the 5 districts that came under Swedish rule to assist him. Statements such as the Council was planned as a provisionel government are unsubstantiated. This council did not include any of the Radziwiłłs or any bishop. Marcelus (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All articles o other Wikipedias were created by the same user. I have checked several books on Lithuanian history, mostly by Lithuanian authors, none of them distinguish this period in a special way, nor do they write about "Swedish Lithuania" as a separate entity. All of them treat the Union of Kėdainiai as an important event, but one with short-lived and essentially insignificant consequences. Marcelus (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We are dealing with an entity that did exist and whose existence is proven in one way or another by many reliable sources (all sources talking about Union of Kėdainiai prove the existence of this political entity). As @SeriousThinker already said, we have articles that deal with even non-existent but possible unions from a similar time period, so I refuse to say that an actual union that did exist does not deserve its own article. We should also remind ourselves that events that might hold significance for one group of people might be irrelevant for others and so it seems to me that this event is generally more important for Lithuanians than for Poles (unsurprisingly so, because this concerns only Lithuania and not Poland).

However, just like @Piotrus wrote, I would change the name to e.g. Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1655–1657) or something similar.

BTW, this is mentioned in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania article in the following sentence, so it's clearly not an irrelevant event:

In 1655, Lithuania unilaterally seceded from Poland, declared the Swedish King Charles X Gustav as the Grand Duke of Lithuania and fell under the protection of the Swedish Empire. However, by 1657 Lithuania was once again a part of the Commonwealth following the Lithuanian revolt against the Swedes. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Let's be honest, the existence of an entity called "Swedish Lithuania" is mentioned only by Kotljarchuk. Other sources say that some Lithuanian lords, headed by Janusz Radzwiłł, concluded a union with Sweden on behalf of the entire GDL on October 20. And there is already an article about it on Wikipedia: Union of Kėdainiai. So there is no need for a separate article with essentially the same content. Marcelus (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference though. No article makes it seem as if there was no entity to speak of and the treaties never had any sort of true impact when, in reality, they did, albeit it was short-lived. There's definitely a similiarity problem here but it doesn't mean that the article itself has no purpose. Overlapping information on Wikipedia is not an unusual thing either. When we make distinctions, such as List of monarchs of X country and List of heads of state of X country, the information can be fairly redundant but they exist because they focus on different things.

In addition, I would say the blame for similarity should be placed on the Union of Kėdainiai article as well because it covers more than it should — its main focus should be more on the negotiations and content of the treaty itself whereas Swedish Lithuania (or Grand Duchy of Lithuania) should focus more on partition of territories, actions of the administration and military feuds. In his book historian Adolfas Šapoka writes in greater detail about the policies of Magnus Gabriel De Le Gardie while governing, Lithuanian resistance and the Swedish defense in Lithuania — I'm not sure that Union Kėdainiai is a go-to article for such information I was considering publishing at some point. SeriousThinker (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Main go to article is Deluge (history). Swedish Lithuania is basically third article on the same topic. Also it makes wrong impression as if Lithuania was established Swedish territory (compare Swedish Livonia), which defnitely wasn't. Marcelus (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a wrong impression though? According to Kontjarchuk, that's exactly what happened — Lithuania was established as a Swedish protectorate (they established themselves as a protectorate of the Swedish Crown). In addition, an article in the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia also clearly states that Lithuania was a Swedish protectorate (Lietuva tapo Švedijos protektoratu — Lithuania became a protectorate of Sweden). SeriousThinker (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through this, the name discussion is impeding the more AfD-relevant content discussion. It does read as if there is heavy overlap. What is the subject/scope of this article, and how is it distinct from the Union of Kėdainiai article? (Not that two overlapping topics can't be well-covered in one article, but that's a possibility that requires two subjects in the first place.) CMD (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Union of Kėdainiai which covers exactly the same material. They use completely different sources, so that this is a clear case where the appropriate solution is a merger, but this will need to be undertaken by someone who knows the subject and the sources, rather than by a closing admin. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Shillelagh. I'm closing this as Merge despite a recent argument against it but editors can choose to merge a lot to absolutely no content from one article to the target article before turning the page into a Redirect. Plus the consensus supports a Merge closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bataireacht

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

I get only 24,000 ghits for "Bataireacht", which seems inordinately small for a supposed martial art with different familial styles passed down "from father to son through the generations". A remarkable number of those hits seem to include the words "making a comeback", and all date to October 2022.

The article is extremely poorly referenced, and I'm almost in agreement with others on the Talk page that it's little more than a hoax. Much seems to have been written by JohnWHurley - who seems to also be the author of The Shillelagh Makers Handbook and Shillelagh: The Irish Fighting Stick, two books - both self-published - which had been the main references, along with a blog, irishstick.wordpress.com. A breach of WP:NOADS and WP:COI. Hurley also appears to have edited with another account, Shillelaghman123 - see history of Irish martial arts. There is only a single reference dating from the 21st century, and three of the seven references, total, are about the word "shillelagh", not the article subject. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, History, Sports, Martial arts, and Ireland. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seeing this BBC article, this book from 2001, and this paper without much effort. Whilst I hear the problem with COI editing, it seems to me highly likely that sources exist that meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: for some reason the BBC weblink is not working, I haven't seen that before - no idea why. JMWt (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt. It's because you've got pipes in those links. EL format is [https://www.bbc.com/ BBC article] rather than [https://www.bbc.com/| BBC article]. Guliolopez (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've fixed. And sorry for messing it up.. JMWt (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's that October 2022 BBC Travel article that seems to have been widely copied and used as the basis for dozens of other article over the next few weeks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's an RS. The other two sources I linked to above are nothing to do with the BBC article and were published beforehand JMWt (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks to just pass GNG. --MartyTheArty (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you expand a little please? Otherwise your contribution looks, for all the world, like a verbatim example from WP:ATA (WP:ITSNOTABLE)? Guliolopez (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per the solid refs JMWt found about this Irish martial art. Of course the Irish know how to fight -- I could have told you that! JMWt, can you add those refs to the article? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done but article needs further tidying and the refs might not be in the best place JMWt (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt, you've certainly done more than I do during an Afd. I just stick new refs I find at the bottom then put a {{Inline}} template at the top. So thank you very much! ::--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the Irish know how to fight? I guess we do? In the 1700s and 1800s, it was with pikes. In the 1900s, it was rifles, car bombs, and Semtex. In the 2000s, it's been handguns, pipe bombs and, well, just knives. It's never been shillelaghs. As a martial art. Secretly handed down from father to son, lost, and now resurrected via... /checks notes... newspaper and magazine articles, and court documents... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun, I apologize for thoughtlessly insulting you and slandering the Irish people. On this side of the Atlantic, "Fighting Irish" is just a cheerful meme - the Notre Dame Fighting Irish or even the names of my predominantly Irish-American Catholic parochial school's teams. It was clueless and insensitive to overlook the real pain the people of Ireland have experienced.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shillelagh as suggested by others. I still believe this topic is notable but it's more appropriate to include this material in the other article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: When you're looking for references, you can't just search for a term and throw it into the article, hoping it sticks. Please also AGF and give me some credit for having already done WP:BEFORE. The BBC Travel article is dubious, but I'll leave it. However, I've removed the Historical Archaeology reference. It makes literally one mention of "bataireacht", says what it is supposed to be, and that's cited to Hurley's 2007 self-published book - which isn't a reliable source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me. The BBC article is a Reliable Source. A published academic paper on the topic is a Reliable Source. A book published on the topic is a Reliable Source.

If you've got issues with these, the correct way to deal with them is to discuss it on the page or on WP:RSN. The wrong thing to do is to start a fight because people are adding sources that you don't happen to like. The whole purpose of the WP:GNG and WP:RS is that we reflect how other sources have treated the subject not that we make the page say whatever we want it to say. The fact is that independent third party reliable sources have covered the topic. JMWt (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not starting a fight, I'm pointing out that a 24-page academic paper mentions the term "bataireacht" once, and uses a citation for that inclusion that goes back to Hurley's self-published book. Maybe self-published books by people trying to create a mystique or pseudo-history around a (re?)invented martial art are deemed reliable by that journal's editorial board, but they're not RS by Wikipedia standards. (See WP:SPS) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not contining to argue with you in two venues. A published paper is a Reliable Source. I understand that you think the topic is a fake, but ultimately it isn't up to you. We reflect the published sources. The end. JMWt (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I'm (currently) slow to make a recommendation on the veracity or notability of the topic, I would note that it is absolutely the case that this article was created by the same person who wrote the main book/works on which it is based. (I refer, for consideration, this exchange from 15 years ago.) That the secondary sources (Hurley's book) and tertiary sources (the BBC piece) and this Wikipedia article are somewhat "self-referencing"/"self-supporting" (cyclical) is pretty clear. I mean, Hurley started this article at the same time he was writing his book(s). This, IMO, raises at least a few WP:NEO concerns. If this article is retained as a standalone topic, the WP:CFORK overlaps with (not least) the shillelagh article would ideally be addressed... Guliolopez (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~A merge to Shillelagh might be an option.~~ Interesting that the BBC article used on that page doesn't use the word bataireacht once, and a practitioner acknowledges "most people think it is a joke." :-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you are merging two different complaints here. First there are the COI issues which are not a reason to delete - and frankly would only affect the 'history' section given there are plenty of people and a good number of sources now to say it is a thing (even if someone recently made it all up). Even there, I think it is a weak argument as I've independently found sources going back to the 19 century regarding rules for Shillelagh fighting. Then there's the issue about the name - which again seems like a non-starter as a) it is Irish for 'stick fighting' and b) we have recent sources that use the word. Third there is the question of WP:CFORK which would appear to be fairly easily solved by participants in the pages, given that Shillelagh appears to refer to the stick and this page appears to refer to movements in the fight. In essence, I don't accept your premise. Someone wrote a book and other people quoted and included the book as a source for other media - ok. That's how it works - it has been noted in other media. Even if the original was made up or exaggerated, it can't now be a fake given that we have sources showing people doing it. An investigation as to whether all the people interviewed in all the sources (including some others I've found but not included) are actors for the journalists concerned is clearly outwith of the role of Wikipedia editors. And to be honest, even if it is all fake, even that's not a reason to delete the page. Write a book with your extensive research showing how it is all a load of bunk and then we can include it as a source. JMWt (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shillelagh#History. I've stayed on the fence a bit. Mainly to give myself time to read and consider the comments from those advocating a "keep" (and to review the sources noted in those !votes - such as the this BBC article, the passing mention in this book, and single mention in this paper). And, having reviewed, I'm not seeing that the subject has significant independent coverage to warrant a standalone article. Certainly those 3x sources are not what I'd call WP:SIGNFICIANTCOVERAGE. In all honesty it seems that the term itself is something of a WP:NEOLOGISM - not having much use beyond the works of the same person who wrote the article. And the topic (fighting with sticks in Ireland) inexorably overlaps with the topic of fighting with sticks generally (already its own article) and the topic of fighting sticks in Ireland (already its own article). The modern resurgent/reinvention practice, as discussed in the BBC article for example, could readily be covered in the Shillelagh#History or Shillelagh#Modern usage sections. And wouldn't seem to be subject of sufficient coverage to warrant a stand-along article (not based on the limited coverage at any rate....) Guliolopez (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shillelagh, various sections, mostly History - as above, and my own searches. The term does seem to be a neologism, and that's after I trawled through some 19th century materials, and it is not at all clear that there was any structured sport of that name, or even in that area. Rather it looks like a freshly-defined structuring of something people did, with a label attached. Some passed down within some families, including a branch of the Doyles (one of the 10 largest name groups in Ireland, but only one small branch, in Canada, claims this carrying of this martial art) and the mentioned scholar, Hurley. In such an event, and with apparent sources in fact apparently mostly echoing one BBC item, and a couple of self-published books, we may be WP:TOOSOON - perhaps some day, this will be a full-scale sport. After all, whatever about ancient hurling, Gaelic football, now massive, was largely developed as a formal sport in the relatively recent past. But for now, Merge... Unless someone can get hold of the books by Hurley, and follow up their underlying references, if available. SeoR (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I got hold of one of Hurley's books as an e-book, and I have to say, it's well-referenced, from a range of sources (mostly not academic, but still...). Its focus is on "Irish stick fighting" and it makes a convincing case that by, at latest, the 16th century, there were several structured styles of stick-fighting used by Irish practitioners, many at least part-based on fencing forms. I remain of the opinion that this article should be merged into Shillelagh, but I do see grounds for a solid section in that article on "Irish stick fighting". One positive in reading the book was that the author himself is quite clear that much of modern martial arts "history" is dubious, and that there is little real evidence for widespread survival of any legacy Irish stick fighting forms - but his historical survey is persuasive, and while attempts at reconstructing 16th-18th century fighting styles are of course somewhat speculative, there is a clear basis present. SeoR (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As an Irish former university history student, this looks doubtful. Admittedly, my view may be based on cavities in my studies, however it's also true that this apparent neologism does not robustly pass the smell test. If bataireacht was a genuine thing, it has an extremely low profile in modern folk memory, to the point of obscurity.

The claims of recent practice in the Modern practice section are entirely unverified by any references. Franky, I don't believe them.

It has been suggested that the article be merged with shillelagh. If consensus emerges to keep it, it could with equal validity be merged into the singlestick article.

Proceed with caution: the bataireacht proposal has a case to prove to justify the article's survival. Spideog (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shillelagh, per Guliolopez and SeoR, rather than my original proposal to delete. Merging seems the better option, and if 'bataireacht' does become more prominent at some future point, it can be split. (I've struck my earlier Merge comment, so as not to be double-counted). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see what earlier participants who supported Keeping this article think of the Merge suggestion to Shillelagh.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: also a one paragraph discussion here [30], seems to at least be a "thing". Should be just barely at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that that Sun piece was researched by reading Wikipedia, and this is more circularity. Uncle G (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a totally inside-out way to approach a topic! We don't have the Irish faction fights, which is exhaustively covered in sources that (a) mention that it was done with far more than sticks and (b) don't describe it as a martial art, but we do have this? Based upon a thesis propounded via Lulu.com books? The subject of the Irish faction fights makes up the meat of this article, even before it was recently pared down. One of the books even cited here is about the faction fights, and it has been carefully cherry picked to be about sticks (and not give a page number), since the book goes on to talk about swords, spears, sawn-off shotguns, and robbing soldiers for their weaponry in the Caravat and Shanavest fights (on page 88). This has been copied and pasted into Irish martial arts as well. So much effort put into a single author's 21st century re-invention and self-publication using Lulu.com and Wikipedia, and no effort into the things that are in the history books. Yes, this should redirect, as above, and a lot of this seems to be misrepresenting the faction fight sources, so I don't support a merger of the content. Uncle G (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I find the arguments of Vaticidalprophet and Beccaynr the most persuasive within the framework, but more importantly the spirit, of our BLP policy here. Daniel (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Xiaoqin

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

The article subject is a child with low cognitive ability who appears to have been exploited. WP:AVOIDVICTIM says "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." BLP also says "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."

Please see further discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Fan_Xiaoqin Fences&Windows 20:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Disability, Entertainment, and China. Fences&Windows 20:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've not verified the sources presented, but agree with the rationale above. I'm not !voting until I can have a better look at the article think through this. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to write this up after an exam -- I see I got sniped. There is an excruciatingly complex situation here. "Article about a minor" is hard. "Article about a cognitively disabled subject" is hard. "Article where most of the sources are in a language extremely unlike English" is hard. We have all three here.
Explaining the going-ons here in full requires some jargon, and it's jargon originally written in Chinese, if that wasn't hard enough. Per The Paper, Fan has been diagnosed with 智力残疾二级. 智力残疾 is intellectual disability -- see this factsheet, written for Chinese speakers living in Australia, for a Rosetta Stone here. 智力残疾二级 is, specifically, severe intellectual disability. See this health-services page from Guangming, Shenzhen -- even if your Chinese is weak, Chinese numerals are fairly simple, and the IQs are given in Arabic numerals, so you can see that 智力残疾二级 corresponds to an IQ from 20 to 34, which is the same thing called severe ID in English. The term "intellectual disability" is not recognized by all readers (I often hear people assume it's roughly synonymous with "developmental disability" and includes e.g. autism), so this needs a little more context again. Here is an open-access clinical primer on ID. To quote the definition of severe ID:

The measured IQ of persons with severe ID falls between 20–25 and 35–40. In addition to severe deficit in intellectual functioning, persons with severe ID may also have motor impairments and other associated conditions that further limit intellectual and adaptive functioning. Persons with severe ID function at mental age between 3 and 5 years as adults. Persons with severe ID need extensive, regular, consistent, and lifetime support in daily living activities, and are care dependent.

Persons with severe ID have significantly limited language and communication ability. They have significant limitations in spoken language; communication may be limited to use of single words or phrases. Their communication ability may be improved with use of augmentative communication methods. They often use gestures to communicate basic needs. Persons with severe ID have significant limitations in understanding concepts of numbers, quantity, time, management of money and problem solving. The social interactions and relationships for persons with severe ID are largely limited to immediate family members and care takers.

A person with severe ID requires intensive support in all activities of daily living including self-care and personal hygiene. They are not able to make sound judgments or decisions that may affect the wellbeing of self or others and require constant supervision.

Assuming The Paper is correctly reporting on his diagnosis, we're talking about an extreme level of impairment. I can't think of any other article where I've had to tease out a situation this complex. This is a significantly disabled 15-year-old who was transiently famous as a child in a non-English-speaking country because his father thought it was the only way to get the family out of poverty. There is a borderline case for notability, but it's trumped by the extreme complexity and sensitivity of the situation. From an ethical point of view, I can only land at delete here -- I think BLP trumps GNG on this one. Vaticidalprophet 21:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand this is a delicate situation. But I do not see how this Wikipedia article does him harm. I sourced my information from publicly available, high traffic sources. His family cooperated with interviews, indicating they are fine with the public attention.

If anything, I believe deleting this article is harmful (though I believe this nom is good-faith). We did not remove the article on George Floyd because he didn't want to be shot. If we *did* remove it, it arguably would have allowed the incident to be swept under the rug and the cop to avoid public responsibility after his conviction. We would be harming the victim.

Similarly, here, we just need to make it abundantly clear that he did not *choose* to become famous. He was exploited by a greedy businessman.

I am aware that he is subject to the BLP policy, and is not become famous out of his own volition. But that did not stop us from publishing articles on people like Jacob Blake, Abby Zwerner, Terri Schiavo or Rodney King while they are/were still alive.

Controversy should be a sign to tread lightly, but not to sweep things under the rug. When we see something difficult (such as Donald Trump or even Star Trek Into Darkness), we should not shy away, but instead work together to improve the article.

We are rightfully concerned about the consequences of him having a page. But what about the consequences of information about him being censored? I urge everyone to weigh both cost and benefit. Bremps... 23:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bremps, first, administrators delete dozens (hundreds?) of articles and pages daily because they are not consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is not censorship unless you consider a "Delete" closure for every AFD, a PROD deletion or CSD speedy deletion to be censorship. Secondly, if we do consider the suggestion you end your comment with, what is the benefit for Wikipedia to have this article? The costs are clear but what is to be gained? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I don't mean "censorship" as in some sort of grand conspiracy by some cabal, but because I believe this subject is notable and is being removed because having an article on him doesn't "feel" right. I'm not implying any malice here.

The benefit is the same as any other Wikipedia article: informing the reader. Years from now, someone could be doing research on Fan and not be able to access sources that have become lost over time. If we make it clear that Fan himself had no agency in making himself become famous, then we'll have neutralized any potential harm this page has. Bremps... 00:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I can see both sides of the argument, but we should perhaps incorporate more of the discussion points above into the article (child appears to have been "used" by his parents to help them get out of poverty). There's a story here, so long as we're careful about how it's told, I think it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see some notability but overall the article makes me too uncomfortable. It talks about learning difficulties for the subject of the article plus details of the health, finances and education of various family members who are WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURES. And given the difficulties described by Vaticidalprophet above, I don't see that we can get this article into a state where it is consistent with WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Mgp28 (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think there are several reasons to delete this article, including because the subject is a sensationalized child, so there are initial WP:BLP policy issues and a need for high-quality sourcing. There also seems to be a focus on scandal mongering, which is contrary to WP:NOT policy, particularly for articles about living people, which are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. As to WP:AVOIDVICTIM, this section also seems to support deletion, and editing does not seem likely to alter the facts based on available sources; for example, while the article currently suggests "Fan remains a celebrity in Yanhui; tourists pay hundreds of yuan to film videos with him", the 2021 source (interviewed by Vice) does not describe him as a "celebrity" and instead describes what sounds like villagers mistreating a child. Beccaynr (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the arguments made by Vaticidalprophet and Beccaynr. There is an argument to be made for notability, but the BLP issues caused by the sensitive nature of the subject are too big IMO. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. based on recent sources brought to this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Sheng-yen

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG. There is simply not enough coverage of this person in reliable sources, most sources being used in the article are primary. The article makes some grandiose statements about him, but none of them are reliably sourced (some were inserted by SPAs) so it's difficult to know how influential this person actually is in China/Taiwan. SparklyNights (t) 16:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Buddhism, China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. SparklyNights (t) 16:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Idk yet. Dude gets news coverage. I got lots of hits on google news (four of which on the first page are from this year and setn.com, the RSness of which I'm uncertain about). Also got hits on google scholar from Buddhism sources. I'm on lunch so I don't really have time to read Chinese and assess whether the sources contribute to notability, but they're there. Hope to circle back this weekend. Folly Mox (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Sources 33 and 36 are the only green ones per the source tool, looks like a whole bunch of iffy sourcing, but this is just my quick scan; I'll perhaps look later. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - this person has "references" largely because of the grandiose claims of primary sources. When the ones from the organization are removed, this article gets a lot thinner. I think this should either be deleted or merged into the True Buddha School article as a subsection. Kazamzam (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2023 (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. Tam, Wai Lun (2016). "The Tantric Teachings and Rituals of the True Buddha School: The Chinese Transformation of Vajrayāna Buddhism". In Gray, David B.; Overbey, Ryan Richard (eds.). Tantric Traditions in Transmission and Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 309–313. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199763689.003.0009. ISBN 978-0-19-976368-9. Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "The True Buddha School has arisen out of the life and experience of Master Lu Sheng-Yen (盧勝彥, b. 1945). Born in Jiayi 嘉義 County, Taiwan, Master Lu is the author of more than 240 books, writing extensively on his own religious experience and cultivation. Lu received his tertiary education in a military college in Taiwan and was trained as a surveyor. He had a deep religious experience in 1969 that led him from his Presbyterian Christian upbringing to a period of seeking, studying, and learning Buddhism (Yao 1994; Tam 2001; Melton 2007). This period lasted for some twelve years during which time Master Lu began to openly accept disciples to teach them Buddhism. Near the end of this period, he also founded the True Buddha School (first known as the Lingxian 靈仙 School) and moved from his native Taiwan to the United States, a symbol of his intention to spread Buddhism internationally. ... Much in the same fashion, Master Lu was an onlooker in 1969 when he accompanied his mother to a temple where there was a medium serving the community. Master Lu was suddenly "possessed" and was given, without his prior consent, the ability to see and communicate with the spiritual world. After this miraculous encounter, Master Lu continued to receive the nocturnal visits of an invisible master who transmitted to him Daoist and Tantric teachings."
2. Irons, Edward A. (2008). Melton, J. Gordon Melton (ed.). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. New York: Checkmark Books. Infobase. pp. 316–317. ISBN 978-0-8160-7744-1. Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Master Lu Sheng-Yen, the founder of the True Buddha School, one of a small number of relatively new Taiwanese Buddhist groups that have emerged as international movements, was born in 1945 in Jiayi (or Chiai) in south central Taiwan. He attended Chun-Jen Polytechnic College in the 1960s and after completing his work joined the army. Lu was raised as a Presbyterian (the oldest Christian movement in Taiwan); however, in 1969, while visiting a Taiwanese temple, the Palace of the Jade Emperor, he encountered a medium named Qiandai, who was a member of a new Taiwanese group called the Compassion Society, based on worship of Xi Wangmu, the Royal Mother of the West, under the name Jinmu. During her presentation, Qiandai told Lu that the gods of the temple wished him to acknowledge them. Thrown into a state of confusion, he found himself able to communicate with the spirit world. Communications continued daily for the next three years. He also met a Daoist master who ..."
3. Gray, David (2011). "Tibetan Lamas In Ethnic Chinese Communities And The Rise Of New Tibetan-Inspired Chinese Religions". In Orzech, Charles D.; Sørensen, Henrik H.; Payne, Richard K. (eds.). Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia. Leiden: Brill Publishers. p. 570–571. doi:10.1163/ej.9789004184916.i-1200.238. ISBN 978-90-04-18491-6. ISSN 0169-9520. Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "One of the most successful self-proclaimed Chinese masters is Lu Sheng-yen 盧勝彥 (1945–present), who refers to himself as the “Living Buddha Lotus-Born” (Liansheng huo Fo 蓮生活佛), most likely in reference to the great founder of the Nying-ma (rnying ma) school of Tibetan Buddhism, Padmasambhava. He founded in Taiwan a new religious movement called the True Buddha School (Zhen Fo zong 真佛宗), which identifies itself as a Vajrayāna Buddhist tradition, although it also draws heavily from traditional Chinese popular religion, both Buddhist and Daoist. The school now has numerous temples throughout the world, with the majority founded in areas where there is a sizable Chinese community, such as Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Australia, and North America. Lu Sheng-yen currently lives in Redmond, Washington, where the main temple of this school is based. He is a prolific author, and has written, according to one source, one hundred and ten works in Chinese, several of which have been translated into English."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lu Sheng-yen (traditional Chinese: 盧勝彥; simplified Chinese: 卢胜彦) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. S5A-0043^Talk 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, sources given by Cunard appear reliable. JimRenge (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMPDH RNA motif

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

Does not meet WP:NBIOL and WP:GNG. No source besides one paper. Hongsy (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete. Published in 2017, it is possible this has been mentioned in other manuscripts under a different name, which might be identifiable via sequence searches or deep review of articles citing the paper supporting this stub. However, I believe that until a motif such as this has been confirmed in some way through experimental evidence, we shouldn't have an article about it. I looked and we do not have an appropriate list to add a mention to. Therefore, my !vote to either Delete or Draftify. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nominating user cites WP:NBIOL. In fact, the text for WP:NBIOL states "RNA motifs: de facto notable? Subject of the recent AfD. Closest equivalent are protein motifs, though no database currently collates an equivalent to Rfam's RNA motifs." The IMPDH RNA motif is an RNA motif and is present in the Rfam Database, as shown in the Rfam infobox within its article. Therefore, previous discussion on Wikipedia that is relevant to this RNA motif tends towards regarding it as de facto notable. Is there a reason to revisit this question? Zashaw (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zashaw - yes, there is reason to revisit because the AfD discussion is 2 years old already. Hongsy (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I get the logic there. I expand on my question as follows.

Two years ago there was a big discussion about deletion of a similar page, which you link to ([31]). In that discussion, many editors argued in favor of deletion, as you do, while others argued against. Ultimately the result was to keep the article, and the line in the WP:NBIOL article that I quoted above was added based on the decision. As far as I can see, your deletion nomination would start a discussion that would essentially rehash the discussion from 2 years previously. This does not seem like an efficient use of Wikipedia editors' time.

My question is: when you nominated this article for deletion, did you have any new facts or arguments in mind that (1) were not available in the discussion 2 years ago and (2) are likely to lead to a different decision about the fate of the article? If not, I don't see a reason to revisit the text in WP:NBIOL. Zashaw (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: might it make sense to put a bunch of RNA motifs in a list? Notability is not required for list members; they just have to be reliably sourced. Here's a list I made of 177 RNA motif articles:

User:A. B./List RNA motifs

My sample list above is too basic to be useful, but it could potentially be expanded with more columns into something that conveys more information similar to:

List of cat breeds

I don't know if you'd want one big list or several smaller lists grouped by type of RNA motif. The list(s) would contain a mix of:

Notable RNA motifs with their blue links to their own articles containing additional information
Notable RNA motifs that don't have their own articles because there's nothing of interest beyond what's already listed
Non-notable RNA motifs that are reliably referenced

Such a list (or lists) could allow us to shrink our article count, provide the same information in more compact form and provide an alternative to deletion (WP:ATD) for non-notable RNA motif articles. 25, 50 or 100 articles are easier to maintain and watch than 177.

For example, if you found this article non-notable, you would just redirect it to the list article. Wikipedia would still have the same information.

Is this list idea feasible or is there just too much variety among RNA motifs? If it is feasible, is it desirable?

Caveat: I'm not a molecular biologist, just an editor who prefers lists over lots of stubs.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to distinguish between experimentally verified motifs and those that are predicted based on computational analysis alone, in my opinion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help to alert areas of the project where there might be editors who have knowledge on this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're an encyclopaedia, not a global database, I would favour our having articles about RNA-motifs that have been written about by multiple authors, not just whoever proposed or discovered them. Databases can very properly include absolutely any publication of a motif because that's their job. Without any reflection on the current article up for debate, do we really want a guideline that tells us to keep articles on a motif that one person proposed on computational evidence, published in a minor journal, and which no one else ever looked at? Elemimele (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some more of the motif's biology from a PhD thesis, so we now have an additional WP:RS. The motif certainly exists; it seems to have a definite regulatory function; and it seems to behave by a novel (and interesting) mechanism. I'd say this was definitely notable. More research can certainly be expected. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mashirima Kapombe

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show markers of significance such as noteworthy journalism awards, coverage and analysis about the significance of their work in sources other than their own employers, and on and so forth -- but this, as written, is of the "journalist who exists" variety, and is referenced entirely to primary source staff profiles and unreliable "career, marriage, education & net worth" sources that aren't support for notability, with absolutely no WP:GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Kenya. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG and speaking from a reliability viewpoint, the sources used are utterly unreliable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to John Albert Gardner#Murders aka original redirect and I'm going to protect it. Star Mississippi 02:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea King

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim here is regional music awards, which would be fine if the article were well-sourced but are in no way "inherently" notable enough to hand her an instant notability freebie without proper sourcing -- but the article is referenced almost entirely to bad sources that aren't support for notability, such as her songs being referenced to their own presence on Spotify, the regional awards being referenced to their own self-published websites about themselves rather than media coverage to demonstrate the notability of the awards, Q&A interviews in which she's talking about herself in the first person, and promotional bumf on PR blogs -- there's only one source here (American Songwriter) that counts as a legitimately WP:GNG-contributing source, but that isn't enough to pass GNG all by itself.
It also warrants note that this is a newly created article that hijacked a redirect that already existed to represent a different person of the same name, which is not acceptable Wikipedia practice -- and for added bonus, the creator left the categories that represented the other Chelsea King on the finished article, so that this living musician was being categorized as a 2010 murder victim, and all of the inbound links to this title are still expecting the original murder victim. So, in all likelihood, the original redirect should really be restored: if and when the musician can actually be demonstrated and properly sourced as notable, an article can be created at a disambiguated title, and then we can reconsider who should be the primary topic and use page moves if necessary, but the creator is not entitled to arbitrarily commandeer a title that already represented somebody else without following Wikipedia's process for dealing with title conflicts.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore original redirect. even without the glaring sourcing issues, this article is a mess and would need a substantial rewrite to fix. Darling (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Massachusetts, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to the last version about the murder victim, as of 12 September 2023. For this singer, I don't think the situation is as dire as implied in the nomination, but she does not qualify for an article here per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTPROMOTION. One problem is that she has worked under several different names. She has a songwriting award/scholarship under her birth name Chelsea Gilliland ([32]), her early band The Harder We Fall got some minor social media notice, and her current band CHLSY has some reliable publications ([33], [34]) but they don't get too far beyond basic introductions. I can find no other reliable sources and the rest of this article is fairly desperate self-promotion and refbombs. In the future, it may be possible for the current band CHLSY to achieve notability, but if so the article should be titled after them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anas Hussain Rizvi

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

Not yet notable per WP:NPOL or WP:BIO. In a WP:BEFORE search I can find only passing mentions of him in English, and even less in Urdu. He's from a notable political family, so maybe someday he'll get elected to office, but until then notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikishovel (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Wikishovel (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is very famous in Pakistan. only being ignored from news because of political victimization by Government of Pakistan. Saad Arshad Butt (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there’s no reliable SIGCOV sources then he’s not notable. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very short article with no significant coverage, at least for now. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 18:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inclined to agree here that WP:NINHERITED is applicable and as the premise of the article asserts the subject as a politician, he fails WP:NPOL. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of supermarket chains in Europe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of supermarket chains in Belarus

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

Medium-sized list, only one entry has an article, & 3 entries have a parent company article, if the individual entries are not notable then neither is the list. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Belarus. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of supermarket chains in Europe. Listing notable entries only. Ajf773 (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Europe's article, as above. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the general list of supermarkets in Europe. User:TheOmniDex (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Yriarte

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. While his list of works is not unimpressive, he still fails to pass the general and author-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Architecture, and France. UtherSRG (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks to be notable to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable, furthermore, author appears to have written a large number of works and meriting of a page. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a sufficient argument to keep an article. More discussion required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These can help [35], [36], [37], [38]. This [39]. He was a member of the Academie francaise [40] and his record in the Getty ULAN, bibliography at the bottom/sources [41].Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Critical study/biography here [42]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources found above, there's a brief entry in Benezit Dictionary of Artists, as well as mentions as a biographer in entries in Grove/Benezit for 3 artists. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Hays

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

Scientist with a particular low h-index. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 11:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, Medicine, and Women. XOR'easter (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our article explains that she moved from research science to teaching and communication early in her career, explaining the low h-index but also putting WP:PROF out of reach. She has several published books but I didn't find any reviews that might give her notability through WP:AUTHOR. And when the best source is a student-newspaper article about how litigious they think the subject is, available only through archived copies, WP:GNG also seems a stretch — it is an independent source with in-depth coverage of the subject, but of questionable reliability for its material, and not really the sort of thing you want to base an article on. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low H index and only 137 academic citations. I also agree with all that David Eppstein said.Royal88888 (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein.There is nothing to suggest that the subject of the articles passes WP:NPROF.Shoerack (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coppley Apparel Group

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

I don't believe there's enough significant coverage online to justify passing WP:NCORP. WP:BEFORE turned up a couple of profiles on various company list sites, an obituary for the owner and one article about an exhibition: [43] Sgubaldo (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the username of the creator of this article is 'The Coppley Apparel Group' Sgubaldo (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Government Mamit College

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

No refernces outside of press release Sohom (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Mizoram. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pls do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolcolney (talk • contribs) 05:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Short question, why ? If you want the page to be kept, you need to prove that the page is notable and that requires you to show that atleast three reliable, independent third-party sources have covered the subject in-depth. Sohom (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolcolney^^ Sohom (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sohom I will update with more source

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. We still need some more opinions here. There hasn't been much participation in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any sources that confirm independent notability for this school.Cortador (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 15:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Launceston Players

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

Unreferenced promotional stub for a company that fails WP:GNG. The creator of the article is also very clearly associated with the company, considering their username is identical to the article's title. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Australia. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of coverage in Trove. Jenks24 (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've removed the lines promoting a modern production and its quality as presumably contributed by the creator of article, but added a range of history sources and sites highlighting the output of the organisation. RossRSmith (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poorly written and neglected article, but this is apparently the oldest still-operating amateur theatre group in Australia. It is covered in an academic journal article and the many news articles listed on their AusStage entry (which is only older articles stored on Trove, not comprehensive) show sufficient coverage for notability. --RL0919 (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Satwant Kaur

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

No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete: There are too many identical names that come up in Gsearch or Scholar, I can't see that this particular individual is notable. Sourcing used in the article is primary or short biographical stubs. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Engineering, Technology, Computing, Delhi, California, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

repeated comments from 2601:647:6680:9910:C8E1:E85D:4449:62BC

Satwant Kaur is noted as "Dr. Satwant Kaur, First Lady Of Emerging Technologies"

If you google search first few links are:

>

http://www.drsatwantkaur.com/static/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Satwant_Kaur

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i47MCrdxy50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqDli58NHPc

https://www.theinfostride.com/dr-satwant-kaur-makes-technology-predictions-for-2014/

https://www.amazon.com/Transitioning-Embedded-Systems-Intelligent-Environments/dp/1490408444

For more please see her website: www.satwantkaur.com

> 2601:647:6680:9910:C8E1:E85D:4449:62BC (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - more substantial independent and reliable secondary coverage is needed to develop a reasonably balanced encyclopedia article and to support notability according to the notability guideline; this article includes biographies produced by the subject, e.g. HuffPo Contributor profile, and press releases, e.g. Patch, which do not support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - another example of a press release in the article is "Dr. Satwant Kaur Makes Technology Predictions for 2014", sourced to PR.com and attributed to Satwant Kaur Media. Beccaynr (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

repeated comments from 2601:647:6680:9910:C8E1:E85D:4449:62BC

Satwant Kaur is noted as "Dr. Satwant Kaur, First Lady Of Emerging Technologies"

If you google search first few links are:

>

http://www.drsatwantkaur.com/static/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Satwant_Kaur

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i47MCrdxy50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqDli58NHPc

https://www.theinfostride.com/dr-satwant-kaur-makes-technology-predictions-for-2014/

https://www.amazon.com/Transitioning-Embedded-Systems-Intelligent-Environments/dp/1490408444

For more please see her website: www.satwantkaur.com

> 2601:647:6680:9910:C8E1:E85D:4449:62BC (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE:

Satwant Kaur is noted as "Dr. Satwant Kaur, First Lady Of Emerging Technologies"

If you google search first few links are:

>

http://www.drsatwantkaur.com/static/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Satwant_Kaur

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i47MCrdxy50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqDli58NHPc

https://www.theinfostride.com/dr-satwant-kaur-makes-technology-predictions-for-2014/

https://www.amazon.com/Transitioning-Embedded-Systems-Intelligent-Environments/dp/1490408444

For more please see her website: www.satwantkaur.com

> 2601:647:6680:9910:C8E1:E85D:4449:62BC (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This "First Lady Of Emerging Technologies" seems to be a branding term they are desperate to get in. It seems to pushed in a number of places. scope_creep^Talk 07:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found a review of her book: Kaffka, Gabi (January 2015). "Transitioning embedded systems to intelligent environments — A journey through evolving technologies, Satwant Kaur". Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 90: 651–652. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2014.02.001., but this is not enough to support the notability of the book nor her notability as an author. Beccaynr (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could not locate significant coverage of her, but she has had a number of articles published. Could someone with the knowhow evaluate her against WP:NACADEMIC? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see little sign of WP:NPROF: The citation record is well short of WP:NPROF C1. The awards are all WP:MILL; the Intel awards I take the most seriously of those on the list in the article, but these awards appear to be internal ones for employees, and I don't think they meet WP:NPROF C2 (even if they could be reliably sourced). Little sign of the other NPROF criteria. I looked also for NAUTHOR, but my (cursory) search for reviews for the one book only found the same one as Beccaynr. I'm not seeing GNG. The article is in poor shape (promo, other problems), and the WP:TNT essay is relevant. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse disruptive bludgeoning by Bmerrow. For reference, this is what the debate looked like prior to this being done. Daniel (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE:

Satwant Kaur is noted as "Dr. Satwant Kaur, First Lady Of Emerging Technologies"

If you google search first few links are:

>

https://www.drsatwantkaur.com/static/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Satwant_Kaur

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i47MCrdxy50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqDli58NHPc

https://www.theinfostride.com/dr-satwant-kaur-makes-technology-predictions-for-2014/

https://www.amazon.com/Transitioning-Embedded-Systems-Intelligent-Environments/dp/1490408444

> 2601:647:6680:9910:C8E1:E85D:4449:62BC (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmerrow (talk • contribs) 02:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) DO NOT DELETE:[reply]

Pat Gelsinger (intel's CEO) compared Dr. Satwant Kaur to Gordon Moore (Intel founder)

in his foreword on her book "Transitioning Embedded Systems to Intelligent Environments "

"Satwant lays out both a vision and data on the key technologies for the future of the embedded world. She has moved from Gordon Moore's kitchen to a canvas where every aspect of the environment is part of, in some manner or another, the embedded Internet of the future."

-Pat Gelsinger, CEO, INTEL BOOK LINK: https://www.amazon.com/Transitioning-Embedded-Systems-Intelligent-Environments/dp/1490408444

One very good summary is https://www.huffpost.com/author/dr-satwant-kaur

For more please see her website: www.satwantkaur.com

DO NOT DELETE: Seismic Based Fracking Fluid Disposal -

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10883364

abstract of Dr. Satwant Kaur patent: Bmerrow (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE: Satwant Kaur Patents

1: Reduced interoperability validation sets for multi-feature products - US Patent 8539446
2: Automated top down process to minimize test configurations for multi-feature products - US Patent 8621426
3: Automated top down process to minimize test configurations for multi-feature products - Part II - US Patent 9189373
4: Method and system for correlating and determining root causes of system and enterprise events - US Patent App PCT/US2002/021376
5: Rh Incompatibility Detection - US Patent App 15308300
6: Generating Specifications for an Orthosis - US Patent 10799179
7: Radio Frequency Identification Capsule - US Patent 10115049
8: Detecting Vascular Conditions in Animal Bodies - US Patent App 15306048
9: Radio Frequency Identification Card Monitor - US Patent 10402608
10: Seismic Based Fracking Fluid Disposal - US Patent 10883364
11: Projections Determination for Column-based Databases - US Patent App 15510610
12: Vibration Notifications Received from Vibration Sensors - US Patent 10457303
13: Distress Signal Device - US Patent 10049561
14: Implantable Device for Detecting Light Correlating to Vessel Patency - US Patent App 15510840
15: Determining Power Difference in Sensor Signals - US Patent App 15539664
16: Detection of Allergen Exposure - US Patent App 15539620
17: Authentication of A User - US Patent App PCT/US2015/012895
18: Activating an Alarm if a Living Being Is Present in an Enclosed Space with Ambient Temperature Outside a Safe Temperature Range - US Patent App 16876748
19: Sensor Data - US Patent App 15574179
20: Traffic Management System - US Patent App 17091709
21: Data Validation - US Patent 10540225
22: Monitoring A Sensor Array - US Patent 10921154 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmerrow (talk • contribs) 21:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"DO NOT DELETE [Satwant owns copyright for "First Lady Of Emerging Technologies"] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmerrow (talk • contribs) 02:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE: She is noted in the field of technology for mentorships of women scientists and executives.

She was awarded Intel Women's Award for her work at Intel as a Platform Strategist. "Outstanding Women Award by Intel, 2009"

I managed a large team and Satwant was far better than a majority of the men - her focus on delivering complex value to clients and ability to provide solutions clients could maintain was unique. Bmerrow (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE : I have the know-how. I was a Technology executive at CA technologies for decades.

And my evaluation is her technology impact is NOTABLE. Bmerrow (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE: She is noted in the field of technology for mentorships of women scientists and executives.

She was awarded Intel Women's Award for her work at Intel as a Platform Strategist. "Outstanding Women Award by Intel, 2009" Bmerrow (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE:

"If you delete First Lady Of Emerging Technologies" on Wikipedia. then: > You will provide everyone with the best evidence of: > Why technology is a racist field, where only men are allowed and noted? > She had 100+media appearances. > We all have daughters. Do we want them to be engineers or not? > Why should it not be obvious to anyone looking at her that she belongs in wikipedia? > Why should there be a second thought that she belongs there? > Unless we men are creating a racist field where only men are allowed. > This wikipedia deletion will close doors to all girls." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmerrow (talk • contribs) 23:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As written, this "article" is just an exercise in brand promotion. That would be reason enough to delete it. The other problem is that we don't have grounds upon which to rebuild the article after that. PR puff pieces can't be the foundation of a biography. The citation profile isn't substantial enough for WP:PROF#C1, none of the awards are comparable to an IEEE Fellowship (WP:PROF#C3), and like the editors above I can't find nearly enough in the way of book reviews to qualify for an WP:AUTHOR pass. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too much promotional puffery here, and not enough in-depth notice from the media. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Consider some light salting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is self-promotional, and the subject fails notability guidelines. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per analyses by Beccaynr and Russ. The creator was also paid to create this article, FWIW.

JoelleJay (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nour Al Hassan

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

Refs are PR and profiles. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Language, Technology, and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, and my search for sources; this seems to be WP:PROMO without substantial independent and reliable sources to support notability at this time. For example, this CNN Money source is primarily based on what Al Hassan says; the article is also largely built around materials produced by Al Hassan and her company, a blog post, and various promotional sources. Beccaynr (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nour Al Hassan's biography is not a public relations page but a testament to her impactful contributions to women's empowerment in the Middle East. I have made changes to the page according to your feedback, and I would like to explain why I believe it should not be deleted.

I understand that the page can be further amended to meet Wikipedia's standards, and I will contnue to do this. Nour's advocacy for women's rights and her role as a role model for many in the region are key aspects that warrant inclusion on Wikipedia.

Advocacy for Women:

- Nour Al Hassan's commitment to advocating for women's rights in the Middle East is well-documented in various reliable sources.

- Her efforts extend beyond rhetoric, as she actively engages in initiatives aimed at improving the status and opportunities for women in the region.

Role Model for Women:

- Nour serves as an inspiration for countless women in the Middle East, with her story resonating as a tale of overcoming challenges and breaking barriers.

Job Creation for Mothers:

- An integral part of Nour Al Hassan's legacy is her commitment to creating job opportunities, particularly for mothers who face constraints in leaving their homes.

- This goes beyond mere business accomplishments, showcasing a socially responsible dimension that aligns with Wikipedia's emphasis on documenting positive societal contributions.

Incorporating these aspects into Nour Al Hassan's biography not only adheres to Wikipedia's standards but also enriches the platform by recognizing individuals who contribute significantly to societal progress.

Thank you very much. Wwat2023 (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it bas been relisted, it is worth examining the references. I'll look at the first two blocks.

Ref 1 [44] That is a image of Nour Al Hassan. Non-RS
Ref 2 [45] "She spoke to The Arab Weekly via WhatsApp." That is a WP:SPS source.
Ref 3 [46] This is a Forbes profile on a X of Y list. It is non-rs.
Ref 4 [47] This is a press-release. It states its a press-release. Non-rs.
Ref 5 [48] Another profile. Non-RS
Ref 6 [49] Another profile. Non-RS
Ref 7 [50] An event listing. Non-rs.
Ref 8 [51] An executive interview.
Ref 9 [52] Another profile. Same image as used above in the other profiles. Non-RS
Ref 10 [53] Another profile. Same image as used above in the other profiles. Non-RS
Ref 11 [54] A short interview.

So there you have it. Three interviews and another 8 non-rs references. Two of the interviews are primary and one is a whatsapp chat is non-rs. This is all PR. scope_creep^Talk 12:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think if we had one more decent source this would be at notability. I agree with the assessment given above, not quit notable, yet. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy‎. ✗plicit 14:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Himalayan Institute of Cultural and Heritage Studies

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

Zero third-party coverage Sohom (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True that. Not much third party coverage as of now. Can an article on this organisation be created again in a few months/a year or so, since more coverage is likely to come in this period? Apandeyhp89 (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Education, and Himachal Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy if Apandeyhp89 would like to keep on working on it, in the hope of finding new reliable sources in the next few months. Otherwise it's a delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Per Chiswick Chap. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kladara

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

PROD objected with non-SIGCOV sources (only mentions). Still cannot find coverage on the subject. Timothytyy (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and Bulgaria. Timothytyy (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, nothing in RS nor Google News. dxneo (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Mentions of the term in old Croatian texts in Gbooks, nothing substantial found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Jalpaiguri

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

zero tird-party coverage found. Sohom (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG Rasel Hasan🇮🇳 (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Rasel Hasan Can you explain why you believe it meets GNG (specifically it's best to link to atleast three reliable third-party sources that would show that the subject is notable). Sohom (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing out there as far as references that can show WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.I don't think the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NORG and reference are n't showing reliable.~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 11:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. An aside, but it's a surprise to see this character called "supporting". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Arbuckle

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

Fictional supporting character from well-known comics. Reception in the article is limited to a blog listicle, development is a bit more serious with one sentence of relevance, that the character is "an author surrogate". My BEFORE shows passing mentions but no SIGCOV. I suggest per WP:ATD-R redirecting this to the List of Garfield characters, with perhaps some merger since his entry there is just a single line. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG here are some sources with SIGCOV [55][56][57][58] —siroχo 09:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but which of those source has anything but passing mentions of the character? I see WP:SIGCOV failing all around. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not have access to the solrad.co (4th) one listed? If you did read it, I'd appreciate a more through rebuttal of its RSishness. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a large amount of SIGCOV in all 4 sources. Here are some examples, not exhaustive. Note that I make efforts not to risk copyvio, so I can't reproduce the entirety of the work here.
Abate 2017 Inks:
Of course, Garfield is not the only character in Davis’s strip who can be viewed as pessimistic and even depressive. This feature is arguably even more evident in Jon. To borrow some terminology from Yiddish, Jon is both a Schlemiel and a Schlimazel: he is unlucky, inept, and bumbling. In everything from his fashion sense, his interactions with women, and his own cat’s perception of him, Jon is hapless. As Jim Davis said of his character: “Jon Arbuckle is wishy-washy and a nerd.”26 Moreover, when it comes to romance, the cartoonist is even more blunt in his assessment, commenting: “Let’s face it, Jon’s not a stud, he’s a dating dud.”27

Vosen, ed. Vanatta, 2012 Chuck Klosterman and Philosophy:
Without Garfield, it is obvious how lonely and self-loathing the main human charac-ter, Jon Arbuckle, is. There is a reason the strip is named after the fat tabby he is the glue that holds Arbuckle together....
After reading only a few of these strips, a reader can easily see the existential crisis Jon is in. If the cats aren't able to see how Garfield is the only thing stopping Jon from having a complete breakdown, they should at least be able to appreciate that Garfield's life is far less depressing than Jon's.

Uidhir, 2013:
In the Garfield comic, Garfield's owner Jon converses and regularly interacts in humorous ways with the titular cat. In Garfield Minus Garfield, there is no Garfield, only the character Jon. Garfield portrays Jon as a hapless but well-meaning character who attempts to control the antics of his mischievous cat, Garfield. In Garfield Minus Garfield, however, Jon is clearly both emotionally and mentally disturbed, terribly lonely, and depressed, and perhaps even psychotic (e.g., he always appears to talk to himself, is prone to outbursts for no apparent reason, or simply stares at the wall)

Palevsky, 2021, Solrad, a majority of the piece is dedicated to the character, including an in-depth analysis of the character's faith. Here's a bit from the conclusion:
Jon Arbuckle’s world is as narrow as the space between two of the panels that make up his life—and, to him, that space is as wide as all of God’s creation. His self-centeredness is so powerful, so precise in its focus, that it manages to disarm and overcome anything and anyone that might attempt to foil it. In Jon’s inevitable 264-page autobiographical graphic novel, he would surely present himself as a good man, and he would believe in this idea, as much as he would believe in his peace....
—siro χ o 04:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources brought up by Siroxo (+ the Grunge article) seem sufficient to me to establish notability. Interesting that a lot of light shed on the character by secondary is derived from Garfield Minus Garfield, and therefore an appearance of the character based on but beyond the original comics. Which is another reason not to redirect to List of Garfield characters. Daranios (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The additional popularity of the character in "Garfield Minus Garfield" has definitely put him over the edge to notability in my view. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources above are enough to pass GNG in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an incredibly well known character. I'm suprised that a WP:BEFORE didnt bring up enough to deture this nom.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The current reception section in the article is terrible, but unlike most of the other characters in the Garfield franchise, Jon does appear to have enough coverage in sources that a decent article could be developed that goes beyond in-universe plot information and ref-bombing style cherry picked quotes. I think the sources provided above are sufficient for actually justifying having this one be its own article rather than just being covered in the List of Garfield characters. Rorshacma (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample coverage about this character. Dream Focus 10:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is convincing coverage to pass the WP:GNG. The article needs work, but deletion isn't appropriate here. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can see the writing on the wall, but I'll dissent and not withdraw this, as I am not convinced the source stabilish notability for him separate from Garfield Minus Garfield. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is a clear current consensus for keep among participants of this discussion, and there is no prospect of the consensus changing. (non-admin closure) — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhalgaon

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

I'm unable to locate any reliable references to this location. Terrickisaiah555 ^[T]/_[C] 00:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Terrickisaiah555 ^[T]/_[C] 00:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed as a village on the 2011 Indian Census, as the reference in the article says. So passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:GEOLAND is a bad guideline and this needs some WP:TNT so someone who knows something can create a decent article. This is likely a real place, but a line in a census isn't enough for a separate article. The only geographic claim is vague, unsourced, and as best I could check fails verification. GNS is very sketchy and I don't know what other source we would use to reliably source the location. I assume all these issues are going to be ignored and the article we be kept as-is, but really we need to stop keeping junk permastub articles just to satisfy a guideline which people complain about constantly. Mangoe (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether you think it's a "bad guideline" or not is irrelevant. It is one. Some people complain about it. Many people support it. A few of the usual suspects complaining about it every time it's mentioned doesn't mean it should be scrapped. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "a line in a census isn't enough for a separate article". Actually, one line for a village in one of the Indian Census's spreadsheets carries a lot of information. Hundreds of columns. No prose but a lot of stats. You could get a pretty good 1-2 paragraph stub out of that one line. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But More work needs to be done!Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expansion is desirable but not strictly necessary. Real villages with census entries get articles per WP:GEOLAND a guideline which is correct in this case. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the WP:GEOLAND. Bhalgaon (भाल्गओं) has 3,119 inhabitants, as of 2011. It has the Postal Index Number code of 344706 and a government office, which grants it legal recognition. Site https://localbodydata.com/gram-panchayat-bhalgaon-35028 indicates key people like the sarpanch which proves inhabited. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I found those editors arguing to Keep this article more persuasive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pernem railway station

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

Fails WP:NTRAINSTATION and WP:GNG. Train stations are not inherently notable unless they meet general or a subject specific notability guideline. Nothing special about this train station Nagol0929 (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with List of railway stations in India#P per nom. The article is largely unsourced, with the only 3 sources concerningly being from Railway Inquiry. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 13:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the article about the line it's on. Deletion would be harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A target would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 04:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It sounds like there are two different target articles being proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The line that it is on is Konkan Railway and that is very clearly the better target for merger, given that there are lots of things about the Konkan Railway that discuss its various stations together, in context, starting with Vaidya 2003 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFVaidya2003 (help) which has Pernem in the route description on page 300 for example. Amusingly, the entire "Location" section of the article at hand, which is a fair fraction of the entire article content, is about the line and not about the station. I wouldn't merge any of it, personally, though, because a lot of it appears to be Wikipedia editor speculation.
Quite a lot of the stations on the Konkan Railway, including the next two stops along Thivim railway station and Karmali railway station, have these woeful articles, sourced only to the railway company's own rail listings. I suspect from a quick look around that there's enough sourcing out there to make articles for all of these, but no-one has been trying to write things properly for years. There might be enough on the multiple Pernem tunnel collapses to make this a fully-fledged article, for instance, and in that respect I lean towards keeping rather than merger. No need for the administrator deletion tool in either eventuality, though.
Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Vaidya, Balkrishna C. (2003). "Konkan Railway transport — a case study in regional development". In Vaidya, Balkrishna C. (ed.). Geography of Transport Development in India. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 294–314. ISBN 9788170229575.
Keep. Sufficient references available to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Referencing in India can be a bit of challenge. Not a reson to delete or nominate all Indian railway stations. This one is relatively well referenced. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Ong

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Unable to verify awards. scope_creep^Talk 07:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, a simple google search of this individual would show this person's notability and coverage. In addition to that of all the information stated within the article are sourced, as no personal research or information were even written into the article. In context to the awards, they have been sourced by several websites and books of publishers from varying organisations, educational institutions and books. He might not be a significantly importantly person internationally, but his influence in a regional level (Brunei and ASEAN) has been shown repeatedly with his meetings with notable people and organisations. Pangalau (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pangalau: Could you please post the best three references per WP:THREE which by consensus is best practice, so I can examine them to see if he is notable. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 12:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[59][60][61] Pangalau (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other folk will have a look at the article and references you post here to support its notability, as well. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 12:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, this is very much appreciated, thanks Pangalau (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first article listed in the three above is tangentially about this individual, talking about a power struggle. The other two are speaker bios, so non-useful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough coverage to warrant an article. The awards given seem notable, but I can't find sourcing to use. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Economics, Brunei, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like there are primary sources to establish that he's a mover and a shaker, however where are the secondary sources? Nil, nada, zilch. That's at least what my searches told me, please correct me if I'm wrong. TarnishedPath^talk 11:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the best solution here is to move some of the useful informations (power struggle) to the established pages of Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah and Prince Mohamed Bolkiah. Thoughts? Pangalau (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'd still need sufficient secondary sources to justify the material being in those other articles in the first place. TarnishedPath^talk 09:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Music Awards (Music Resource Group)

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

Spam for non notable defunkt award farm. Refbombed to PR, reproductions of routine notices and primary sources. Lack coverage in independent reliable sources.
Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Music Awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Awards. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Source 2 and 14 are green per source tool, I guess it's ok. Notability is established. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't even make the effort to actually look at the sources the you really shouldn't be !voting. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source two is a list of the winners, source 14 has now been removed. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you still haven't bothered actually looking at the sources. No it is not a list of winners. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the existing sources are any good. They're all either routine announcement presumably reproduced from the subject, or "X teams up with" type articles which are not independent. If these awards are to have any notability there really ought to be something written about them (rather than merely relaying who won) by someone truly independent of them. Elemimele (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There don't seem to be any sources about the actual Awards, and at most press release-style announcements of them happening. I think this article needs at least one or two independent sources actually focussing on the Awards themselves as an event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs)
Delete Not really seeing any good independent coverage of the awards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nabakhsh

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

Does not meet WP:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. Hongsy (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Hongsy (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GEOLAND: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karizan-e Sofla

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

Does not meet WP:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs. Hongsy (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Hongsy (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GEOLAND: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoseynabad-e Shageman

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

Does not meet WP:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs. Hongsy (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Hongsy (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GEOLAND: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hibernation (computing)#Linux. as WP:ATD (non-admin closure) – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TuxOnIce

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

Agree with the hatnotes that there have been problems with this page for many years. Primarily there seem to be POV issues with the text and insufficient sourcing. In terms of notability, it doesn't seem that the level of coverage of in RS exists. Even if they do, the page needs WP:TNT to fix the issues JMWt (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hibernation (computing)#Linux as an alternative. The subject is mentioned there. ✗plicit 03:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khasarehzad

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

Does not meet WP:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No english source, and Tageo is a database, not a source Hongsy (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Hongsy (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gtech Mulearn

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

Lack of clear notability is evident, although the sources provided are not the worst. BoraVoro (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, Technology, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the cited sources is substantial coverage of Gtech Mulearn: they are just promotional announcements of product launches. Also this reference & this one are so similar, with substantial amounts of word-for word identical text and the rest closely paraphrased versions of essentially the same text, that there is no room for any doubt that they are two write-ups of the same press release, and likewise so are this one & this one. This one is full of language such as "... engage the talents in programming, product design, and product making, with the potential to build technology products that can tap the global market...": just blatant marketing material, not independent coverage. In summary, not a single one of the cited references is either substantial coverage of the subject or an independent source, let alone both of those, as needed to establish notability. JBW (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mareh Khaneh Kharabeh

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

Does not meet WP:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No english source, and Tageo is a database.

From WP:GEOLAND: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Hongsy (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gol Gazabad

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

Does not meet WP:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs.

From WP:GEOLAND: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Hongsy (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kul Bazan-e Yek

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

Does not meet WP:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs.

From WP:GEOLAND: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Hongsy (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shenin Hoseyn

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

Does not meet WP:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs.

From WP:GEOLAND: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Hongsy (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zeh Badi

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

Does not meet WP:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs.

From WP:GEOLAND: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Hongsy (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kurkaj

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

Does not meet WP:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs.

From WP:GEOLAND: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Hongsy (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury Card

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

Fails GNG. All existing sources are either PR pieces or covering the trademark lawsuit, which should be in the Centurion Card article instead. Also article is created by a single-purpose account. NM 11:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NM 11:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

Editors have had two weeks now to improve this article or bring in new sources which hasn't happened. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Behrens

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

Fails WP:NBASIC and GNG. Unable to find significant coverage across independent, reliable, sources via a BEFORE search. Rotten Tomatoes is not in-depth coverage, fails GNG. Tails Wx 14:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. Tails Wx 14:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there aren't many sources and documentation about him, but still he got articles in 5 other languages and contributed to a somewhat big number of films ([62]). I could therefore add a fimography part to his article and/or help translate the german article. Nyraxis (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The German wiki article only uses imdb and another site I'm not familiar with (but just has a list of films and a small blurb as a bio). Unless we can locate own-language sources, it should be deleted for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cypres

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

Not enough sources found to justify a stand-alone article. Possible WP:ATD is redirect to automatic activation device. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing a merge to Automatic activation device is DUE, as there's only a table entry there right now. There's a good deal of short coverage [63][64], but I'm not seeing enough in the WP:PRODUCTREV style for an independent article. Redirect should probably be categorized {{r with possibilities}}. —siro χ o 08:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rather than merge. There seems to be a couple mentions of this product in the automatic activation device, and I wouldn't put anything more in there other than some references that verify its existence like the ones linked above. Searching for other sources doesn't yield anything new. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. UtherSRG (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Firuzul Abdullah Haleel

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

Non-notable spox. Was previously draftified but author unilaterally moved past AfC back to main space, so here we are. Cites only one source, and a search finds nothing other than news of his appointment, or him doing his job ie. speaking for the administration, neither of which makes him notable. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Maldives. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are few links I have found on him. In Maldives Media is mostly in local language.

He is appointed at the rank of Deputy Minister and so far local TV's are showing him since he is the official government spokesperson. On Point (3) found a live of him.

Hope this helps. Existence Leesaaisath 15:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage other than him being quoted as a spokesperson. None of the sources provided by @Leesaaisath provide any significant or independent coverage. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the Boloney sources @Leesaaisath provided and that are on the article. Terrible page that doesn't demonstrate GNG.

AaronVick (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC) — AaronVick (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Comintell (talk · contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as User:AaronVick has been found to be a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to see a second opinion on the newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against recreation if something decent turns up, or his political career becomes more notable in future. The new references do not contribute enough to notability. The first is not about him or his political actions, it's about an issue where he was chosen as the government's spokesman. The second is merely a photograph confirming his name (different latinised spelling) and job title. The third I cannot assess as it's a local TV piece, but even if it contributes as strongly as possible, we're left with it, and the article's source, which merely says he's been appointed transitional spokesperson and two very minimalistic sentences about his education and most recent job. This is way, way short of enough to justify an article. Elemimele (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Energy

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are blogs, mentions and even WP:FORBESCON. A WP:BEFORE search found the same along with a ton of press releases. CNMall41 (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Texas. CNMall41 (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not done creating the page when I published it in order to be able to attach a graphic. Sorry about that. I am still adding the cites and links to it. Modwiki (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Is there additional information to wanted to add to the page to show notability? Do you feel it is a notable company and if so what references per WP:THREE would say count towards WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my observations:

1. There is a case on Zeta Energy in Strategic Management: Theory and Cases, one of the world's most widely used strategy textbooks and used in thousands of business schools around the world.

2. CleanTechnica, which published an interview with Zeta Energy's management, is a top rated news source for clean tech news, and is rated "generally trustworthy" and "High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record" by MediaBiasFactCheck.com.

3. Zeta Energy won a $4 million dollar award from the U.S. Department of Energy ARPA-E program, and news of this award was widely reported, including on ABC13 Eyewitness News and several Houston newspapers.

4. Sandy Munro, the auto industry's most famous tear-down analyst did a one-hour segment on Zeta Energy for his show, Munro Live, which has over 387,000 subscribers. He is famously unbiased and became the leading source for cost breakdown info for Tesla vehicles and other EVs. This was the source of his interest in Zeta Energy because Zeta Energy makes batteries that are expected to change the cost structure of EVs. The episode got 271,000 views. Modwiki (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Support nom, scarce sources BoraVoro (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see an evaluation of the sources brought into the discussion. Also, there is an unbolded Keep here so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete references [2-8] seem to be trade publications.

Reference [11] is unable to be accessed or assessed.
Reference [14] is trivial coverage that reads like a press release and provides no original or independent analysis or coverage of significance. It is routine reporting of capital raised. Think this clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH other sources seem to be primary or unreliable, such as reference [9] which is a YouTube video. Delete or draft

Cray04 (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lithium–sulfur battery where the company is currently mentioned, as WP:ATD. —siro χ o
Delete Unable to find any references that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Osborne (singer)

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only music blogs, and the local news story cited here. He's worked with a few notable musicians, but on WP, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikishovel (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Wikishovel (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is a music historian, Dr. Richard Osborne, I don't think it's this fellow... Delete for lack of sourcing. What's used in the article is orange or red per source tool. I can't any sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model

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

Blatant POV fork/copy of a section of As a service, copied without attribution while discussion is ongoing at Talk:As a service. An inferior copy of Category:As a service, not notable in its own right. MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation and re-title as As a service (disambiguation) The list of links is notable and would be a great DAB page, and I don't find this to be a POV fork at all, as it's a simple list. It certainly doesn't need to be in grid form with abbreviations, though; the average reader can discern what it is just by reading. Nate • (chatter) 16:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would not be an appropriate disambiguation page as the business models are not called "as a service" without a preceding term and are thus all WP:PTMs. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep as a separate list, or Merge into the main article As a service. We certainly do need to have a list showing the types of business that use the as a service business model. Since this list is longer than the article, it may make sense to keep it separate from the article. But an argument could be made that since the article is not very long to begin with, the list should be merged with the article. Either way works for me. Where is Matt? (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The 'as a service' topic is more than adequately covered in Cloud computing#Service models, which provides all the necessary context needed. There is no merit whatsoever in providing a list of whatever-as-a-service acronyms, given that the scope is more or less infinite, and the significance more often not existing only in the minds of those looking for marketing-speak to impress the less informed. It is jargon. New words for old ideas. Wikipedia is not a compendium of fashionable acronyms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

more or less infinite? really? If that's the case, we have our work cut out for us. If you stop and think about it, that's actually a keep argument for a list article. Where is Matt? (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either Convert to set index article or Merge into As a service. There isn't really ambiguity between the various types of "as a service" given their different names, so a DAB page wouldn't make much sense. A SIA would be appropriate if more details about the entries can be added. Otherwise, merging into the main article is also fine, but the list is actually better referenced and takes up more page space than the current main article, which would look a bit weird if merged. Liu1126 (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where are the sources that discuss this topic as a group, as required by WP:LISTN, as opposed to merely analyzing one individual model? None have been provided either here or in the article itself. Also note that a discussion at Talk:As a service is developing a consensus to redirect that article elsewhere, which would complicate merging something to it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the business model is inherit in the As a service article. Nonetheless, I added a reference to the list article to show the notability of the business model. If this reference is not sufficient, we can find others. Where is Matt? (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pppery, who points out this fails WP:LISTN as no sources have been shown that treat this subject as a group. The source added in response to Pppery's comment merely describes what the model itself is and makes no attempt to provide any kind of notable list or grouping, so misunderstand's the objection. Fails WP:LISTN. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert/cleanup into a WP:SETINDEX. This serves a useful navigation function per WP:CLN/WP:AOAL, but it needs to be cleaned up. // Timothy :: talk 07:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaCommons

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

Lacks SIGCOV. Google returns a single news article plus a couple of blog posts. NM 04:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a weird one. I'm not seeing the coverage to keep this, and I don't see any plausible redirect targets either despite the range of organizational collaborations here. Plausibly WP:TOOSOON, but as a publishing project it seems pretty dead, it's basically a blog these days. Suriname0 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Corporate Counsel

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

Lacks SIGCOV. NM 04:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on grounds of WP:IAR. This is a 40 year-old organization that has branches around the world, has given testimony before the U.S. Congress, files briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, is quoted regularly in books and other scholarly works, and has an annual benchmarking survey that is widely reported. After diligent search there does not, however, appear to be any lengthy description of its activities in an independent source. While it's thus entirely possible to justify the deletion on WP:NORG grounds, this would be one of those occasional exceptions where doing so would not make sense. Oblivy (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of minor planet discoverers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S. Cofré

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

Apart from the fact that she lived and discovered 11 asteroids in 1968, we know nothing about the subject of this BLP, not even her first name, when she was born and whether she is still alive. The three conditions set out in WP:BLP1E are not met: RSs cover the subject only in the context of that single event, she is likely to remain an WP:LPI, and the event and her role in it did not get persistent coverage in RSs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not enough here to justify calling it notable. Even the Spanish version of the article is vague about most things. It says "es o fue" (is or was), making it clear that there is no (or insufficient) information about whether S. Cofré is still alive. I also wonder where the "her" came from: the Spanish article says nothing to indicate whether S. Cofré is a man or a woman. Athel cb (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As to whether she is (or was) indeed a woman, I managed to find this: Como particularidad cabe señalar que otra mujer, S.Cofre, es co-descubridora del planetoide ("Notably, another woman, S. Cofre, is a co-discoverer of the planetoid.", DeepL translation) [65]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you. I did some searching, both for her name on the web and on the Universidad de Chile website, but I didn't find that. On the other hand, something I failed to notice earlier, is that the Spanish article says "un astrónomo" suggesting a man, but although a woman biochemist would always be una bioquímica, not un bioquímico, I don't know if the same practice applies in astronomy. Athel cb (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if the decision is to delete, then I recommend a redirect to List of minor planet discoverers where this person is already listed. Praemonitus (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems fine. Perhaps adding the name to the Women in Red list for the country would help, I've seen some pretty amazing stuff happen when people get digging for sources there... Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree an ATD should be used. Redirect could suffice. It's also quite possible to rename this to Minor planets discovered by S. Cofré with a slight restructure, as an informational list. —siro χ o 03:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of minor planet discoverers. Cofre is mentioned in directory books like this, but this seems to fail WP:GNG. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
imho Keep : as itwiki, to avoid losing this minimum information GiovanniPen (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor planet discoverers. Nothing significant to be said about this person. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There are inadequate sources for a BLP article and none have been brought into this discussion. This article can be restored to Draft space if additional sources can be located. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naoto Hori

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

The article has issues with notability and sourcing. Single ref to a Japanese sports stats catalog that does not seem to confirm most of the information here. ~~No ja interwiki~~. The user who created this on en wiki has been banned for socking, and according to some related pl wiki discussion is responsible for cross wiki spam, mass creating articles on Japanese-related soccer players, many of whom do not meet NBIO. Someone on pl wiki suggested in the deletion discussion about this person (Naoto Hori) that the stats cited here suggest possible notability if sources ca be found (but said sources may not exist outside Japanese). My BEFORE yielded nothing, but perhaps someone with access to Japanese sources or a deeper knowledge of the sports field can find something to rescue this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous sources are listed at Japanese wiki. There's no reason to suppose they're falsified, even if they're hardly available offline outside Japan. Also even if no other sources are given, the only one listed in the article confirms he has played 5 matches in JLeague in 1993. Which was a professional league at that time. Therefore there is no valid reason for deletion, although, of course, improving the list of sources, preferably by someone from Japan, who could reach the books cited in the Japanese wiki, is more than welcome. Avtandil (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I did miss he has an entry at ja:堀直人. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although there seem to be more sources on the Japanese version of the article, most of them are just sports databases with player statistics. Even the articles that are linked to include only a trivial mention of him, e.g. the SoccerKing source (I can't even link to it, it's blacklisted on enWiki). Perhaps most of the media coverage of Naoto Hori might be in print (pre-internet ?) given his age. I think an editor fluent in Japanese would need to take a look around. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he's from the pre-internet era so a bit hard to find anything although photo archives do bring up images. Given his professional career, it strains credulity to suggest that he wouldn't have substantial coverage in Japanese newspapers from the time (imo, Japanese newspapers are far more prolific in detailing athlete's lives than US newspapers). DCsansei (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per DCdansei. Made almot 100 appearances in Japan top flight in pre internet era so deniftely has offline sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a great arguments. Where you able to locate any sources, or is this just hope? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per above Svartner (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Single source in article is a database record, no sources above and BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 17:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Monroe Winter

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

Fails to meet notability criteria for musicians and ensembles under [[66]]. Holding a (presumably section) position in a professional orchestra and holding a professorship do not on their own qualify, and if the Robert Downey, Jr. event qualifies, it could be placed on the film's Wikipedia page without need for this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcticwarp (talk • contribs) 00:54, November 17, 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more legwork since nobody else has commented. Notability with respect to music would require one of 12 points in the linked list from my previous comment. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 would all be easy to find if satisfied. Point 6 requires being a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. The first source in the article is titled "Virginia Symphony Welcomes New Musicians : Principal Timpani, Principal Trumpet and Core Violinists Announced", and in general a non-titled chair in an orchestra would not be considered "reasonably prominent." The Richmond Symphony link also just lists him as "violin" without any title. I only see "reasonably prominent" satisfied within the Wintergreen Festival Orchestra, which hasn't merited its own Wiki page. The only point someone could make an argument for here would be point 1's two independent sources, but I would argue the source from Mason News to be trivial, and the source about him tutoring Robert Downey, Jr could just be folded into a different article even if it doesn't qualify as a minor news story that wouldn't grant notability. I also checked Wikipedia's notability standards for academics[[67]], and I can't find any indication this subject satisfies them. --Arcticwarp (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more experienced editors than the nominator who has been active a week and has 9 edits to their account.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I just added a current source from the University of Central Florida, which brings this violin professor's background bio up to date. A basic problem on this article is that the sourcing has been nine years out of date, while the professor himself has continued with his career. There's a lot about him on Google. — Maile (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing notability for PROF as being met, appears to be simply a working academic/musician. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Closing as there is a clear consensus to keep, given the submissions are unianimous. The only submission for delete has been changed to keep. There is no active discussion ongoing, with no reasonable prospect of the consensus changing. (non-admin closure) — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Abeysuriya

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

This article does not WP:BIO Cossde (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Sri Lanka, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this supposed to be a resume? What is this? This fails WP:BIO. TarnishedPath^talk 12:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Keep per sources shown below. TarnishedPath^talk 10:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many in-depth news stories about him in national-level newspapers. Appears to be a clear pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. based on number of present references it should be kept. See 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8.Royal88888 (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 11:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have seen credible sources about the subject and hence it should be complying with WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aberffraw (cantref)

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

Stub. Unreferenced since 2010; tagged with notability since last year. Can anyone save this or should be redirect this somewhere (where)? My BEFORE shows some passing mentions but nothing that obviously screams "this is notable, here's the def". House_of_Aberffraw#Aberffraw_hundred_(cantref) seems related, longer, referenced and a possible redirect target? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, United Kingdom, and Wales. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to meet WP:POPULATED (eg [68] "South Anglesey was ruled from courts at Aberffraw and Llys Rhosyr") A merge by WP:NOPAGE would make sense but I'm really not confident where to. —siro χ o 03:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aberffraw#Aberffraw cantref (hundred) for now; as ATD, unless the article is subsequently improved like Cantref Arfon and therefore change to keep then. Dank Jae 09:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - found some references to Aberffraw as a cantref specifically so that's at least one issue down. Also from what I found, the larger Aberffraw article isn't correct as there were references to it as a cantref at least 200 years prior. Kazamzam (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source you added is from 18th century. As for the second, I don't see how it meets WP:SIGCOV? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with an 18th century source for 14th century history? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Old sources are not very reliable. The name or definitions might have changed. It seems I am in minority, but I'd like to see a modern-era SIGCOV treatment of this entity. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantref Arfon. The RCAHMW confirms the existence and approximate borders of the Aberffraw cantref.[69] Google Books and Google Scholar show multiple likely sources, and many of the sources cited in Cantref are likely to also discuss this cantref. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unnecessary deletion as it has historical merit and connects to the House of Aberffraw article which is relevant.Cltjames (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see more opinions reviewing recently added sources to see if they are sufficient to Keep this article. If not, it seems like this should be closed as a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source by Henry Rowlands checks out, and is still cited by 21st century scholarship such as Longley 2009 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLongley2009 (help) which adds a couple of facts but should probably be read in light of Carr 2011 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCarr2011 (help) when it comes to LLifon in 1284. There's probably enough here, and more to say, although the redlinking of the commotes is over-optimistic, I think. It's those that should probably be redirects, to this article. Uncle G (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Longley, David (2009). "Gwynedd before and after the Conquest". In Williams, Diane; Kenyon, John R. (eds.). The Impact of the Edwardian Castles in Wales. Oxbow Books. ISBN 9781782973676.
- Carr, A. D. (2011). "Jones Pierce Revisited: The evidence of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century extents". In Griffiths, Ralph A.; Schofield, Phillipp R. (eds.). Wales and the Welsh in the Middle Ages. University of Wales Press. ISBN 9780708324479.
Keep Sufficient sources have been found. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed position from above), sufficient sources found. Dank Jae 12:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marit Sandvik

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

Not a notable person Ultra 348 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nomination should be procedurally closed unless you elaborate on why. Among others, the subject has won two awards. We can't have deletion nominations that are this sparse. Geschichte (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- OK edited.
@Ultra 348: Hi, do you want to withdraw your AfD nomination as you removed the AfD notice on the article with the edit summary 'Ok keep' and added a sentence to the article saying that she is notable for winning those awards? Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes Ultra 348 (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This was relisted for another week by Liz and no further input was achieved. Daniel (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Pants Day

AfDs for this article:

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

I have reviewed the previous deletion discussions and it seems like the sources for this are few, and many seem to trace back to Wikipedia. The Knighthood of BUH itself seems to taken down it's website. I am sure the sources prove that events have occurred at the UofT at Austin, but not sure about anywhere else. It's honestly possible the knighthood themselves created the initial article. Since this is localized to one University as far as i can tell, it should either be merged with the University of Texas at Austin article or deleted.

Do not confuse this with the No Pants Subway Ride, a much more popular unrelated event that happens in January. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A reasonable voice (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep BUT I think the best thing to do would be to delete the meat of the article related to UT Austin and have it be about the aforementioned No Pants (Subway Ride) Day itself, which is what I've seen the term refer to more often. Kazamzam (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kazamzam, what do you mean by "soft keep"? I've closed a lot of AFDs and I've never heard of a soft keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out over 2 AFD discussions and the article's talk page, the No Pants Subway Ride, which is how editors have repeatedly tried to rescue this, has its own article. We are at the point where we really have to determine whether some day invented by a comedy club in a university in Texas is actually properly and independently documented in depth and has escaped its creators. "By a comedy club?", you ask. That's how a university magazine characterized it, and really didn't say much in depth about this at all. It was less well documented by the university magazine article than the Knighthood of Buh (AfD discussion) itself was, which we deleted, and which the magazine article was mainly about. Ironically, there is more text in the rants on the talk page about students making up stuff than there is about this day in any source that I can find. One of the sources in the article is an interview with the inventors describing this. After all of other editors's searches on the talk page and and in prior AFD discussions, we collectively have managed the Houston Chronicle as 1 independent source and that's it, after 18 years. Uncle G (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to No Pants Subway Ride. LuGus DeclanBiba ElodieBarnaby 01:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There is not a lot of RS coverage here, but there is enough between Austin and Berkeley to make this viable as a subject [70], [71]. The Chronicle article [72] on newspaper comics confirms my own (non-RS) recollection of that event. The article is in sad shape, but WP:DINC. If this were a new article, I'd probably suggest draftify, but it is referenced independently just enough to sustain an article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources on Newspapers Extended. If anyone looks at the article now and thinks it's not WP:HEY enough, I can add a few more, but the Boise and Billings events (no subway involved) should be enough WP:SIGCOV. Cheers! BBQboffin^{grill me} 07:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was going to close this as No Consensus as a bold NAC closure, however given the history of this subject I refrained and will simply provide an opinion that it seems no clear consensus has been achieved here. I am not myself entirely satisfied this is an article worthy of inclusion based on gut instinct. Coverage does not automatically warrant inclusion, we must consider whether on the totality, the subject itself needs coverage in a standalone article. However, there is no question that on its face, the article does appear to meet the general notability guideline. I do not think a clear-cut, unequiovcal argument for either Keep or Delete can be made. I believe that based on the discussion which has taken place, and considering the AFD history of this subject, no clear consensus has been reached, and never will be reached. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 'delete' arguments were that there's "1 independent source and that's it, after 18 years" and the nom thought the May events were localized to Austin. Clearly those arguments are refuted by the text and sources that have been added to the article since. We have more than WP:THREE strong sources, and WP:SIGCOV of non-subway events in Berkeley, Billings, and Boise. As for your "gut instinct", with all due respect, that is not a Wikipedia policy; WP:GNG is, and A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. BBQboffin^{grill me} 03:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more assessment of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Pokotylo

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced biogaphy article which fails notability guidelines for musicians and biographies. I couldn't find notability guideline-passing sources from a BEFORE search, in American and Kazakh. Tails Wx 00:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kazakhstan. Tails Wx 00:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete: Absolutely nothing to find of this individual, only wikis mirroring this site. They claim the subject placed fifth in a competion, however there's no proof of that and the SuperStar KZ show is also Unreferenced and has limited sources online which are probably not reliable. Not sure if this was about the same subject but this discussion (WP:Articles for deletion/Nikolai Pokotylo) resulted in no consensus 17 years ago, I don't know what was going on as they weren't citing any sources. dxneo (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 01:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Lexington, Transylvania University 300 North Broadway; Fax: 859‐233‐8797, KY 40508 USA Phone: 859-233‐8300. "Creative Intelligence". Transylvania University | Calendar of Events. Retrieved 2023-11-17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[2] Conley, Julia (2020-11-13). "Trump campaign presents 238 pages of ridiculous GOP poll watcher affidavits". Salon. Retrieved 2023-11-17.

[3] Academy, NBCU (2023-10-11). "How Substack Journalists Are Growing Their Audiences". NBCU Academy. Retrieved 2023-11-17.

[:4-4] Avilucea, Isaac (August 2, 2023). "Tangle founder hosts high court chat in Philly". Axios.

[5] Waldmeir, Patti (2022-05-30). "Two Americans talk across the political divide". Financial Times. Retrieved 2023-11-17.

[6] "American Democracy Summit Speakers". American Democracy Summit. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

[7] "Isaac Saul - Official Member of The Progress Network". The Progress Network. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

[8] "Frank talks to Isaac Saul, Founder of Tangle News about the Israel-Hamas war. – 77 WABC". wabcradio.com. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

[9] Hibberd, James (2022-11-15). "'SNL' Ratings Hit Season High With Dave Chappelle Amid Uproar". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

[10] Brother, Nate (2023-12-06). "Transylvania Hosts Journalist Isaac Saul in Creative Intelligence Series". The Rambler. Retrieved 2023-12-08.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]