< July 28	July 30 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NFOOTY has been deprecated so arguments based on having played internationally are no longer valid. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Morgan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per NemesisAT and Zanoni. In addition, he is a young international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No such coverage is in the article and none has been presented here. Alvaldi (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At this time, there is no significant coverage on this player available. We have no adequate sources to indicate notability. None of the keep votes above are not policy based. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. I strongly disagree with the logic that the article should be kept because WP:BEFORE wasn't done as even if that were true, it is not a requirement for deletion. It's strongly encouraged, mostly to prevent wasting time at AfD with situations where sources are readily available if one would only look, but this is not that situation, and sources have not been provided that show that WP:BEFORE was not done. I have looked for sources, as I assume everyone here has. That none have been presented is only evidence of the lack of notability of the subject. Regardless of why the article arrived here, it's here at AfD now and we must examine the article on its own merits rather than on our perceptions of the nominator (two of the three keep arguments are based solely on the merits on the nominator, rather than any guideline or policy-based argument on the article itself). As for the third keep argument, that the article's subject has an ongoing career is not an argument for notability, if anything that just indicates a possible WP:TOOSOON issue. What happens at other WikiProjects has zero bearing on this article's lack of notability. Notability's just not there. - Aoidh (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Fleming[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page was deleted in 2021 for failing N:FOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Page was drafted in May 2022, submitted, declined then moved out of draft space. Fleming still fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage on her. Dougal18 (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is notable as there are several articles about her, Including this and this.Samanthany (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Articles from clubs she played/s for lack independence and don't count for GNG. Transfer coverage is routine and doesn't count for GNG either. Dougal18 (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There is no evidence of notability. Fats40boy11 (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent SIGCOV has been found, so the subject fails GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Brown (radio host)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. Lacks coverage in reliable secondary sources and I can't find any better sources. Possible merge or redirect targets include Business Wars (podcast) and Marketplace (radio program). TipsyElephant (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Radio, and Texas. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some more sources, hopefully that helps keep the page. I don't think it makes sense to merge, as he is really notable for multiple things. Relinus (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this is a well sourced article and he has done things that are notable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please consider article after new sources added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources added to the article by Relinus. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Shadow of the Revolution[edit]

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

Documentary film about the Bolivarian Revolution that presents no claim to notability. Sources in the article are a blog and a film database (cited twice in different guises) and that's all we have. Search shows no critical reception, impact, discussion or other evidence from RS this film passes WP:GNG let alone WP:NFILM, no awards, critical reviews etc Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Venezuela. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article meets WP:GNG because its coverage is independent. I have fixed the PM Press link, which previously linked to the already cited Filmzie page. I'm not sure what's the blog that is being referred to, but Caracas Chronicles besides analysis and opinion pieces, the outlet also focuses on news articles and has editorial oversight that a blog doesn't; its entry can be seen at WP:VENRS. Given the distribution of the film and its release on Amazon Prime (In The Shadow Of The Revolution), the article should meet WP:NFILM too. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are some good coverage of this. Covered by Caracas Chronicles in an article here and elswhere. Karl Twist (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People, Caracas Chronicles is a blog. And that means not RS... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can see Caracas Chronicles' entry at WP:VENRS. The website counts with experienced journalists and has editorial oversight, meaning that it is not a self published source or match the definition one would expect in WP:BLOGS. A better comparison for their analyses could be the ones in The Economist, Foreign Policy or Americas Quarterly --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding above - Yes NoonIcarus, that's what I am thinking too. There are a lot of hits of Caracas Chronicles in Google News. And there are many sites that are blogs but reliable news sources. So I would say that Caracas Chronicles is a reliable source. Karl Twist (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first sites looks like a blog, states it a blog and states states "friend of.." so doesn't seem to be editorially independent in this instance. The other similar to IMDB, i.e. film/cast listing sitres are they are likely Non-RS. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Don't see any reviews on a before. It just to be there mates and some IMDB style listings. scope_creep^Talk 09:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 18:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The God of Ramen[edit]

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

Documentary film about a Ramen chef - first and foremost fails WP:GNG, sourcing is to festival website, blogs, licensing company etc. No independent, in-depth coverage. Search throws up very little else and nothing of weight/note. Festival screening alone does not confer notability (for historical notability, "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.") but this 2013 film doesn't qualify for that clause. Fails WP:NFILM. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Film, and Japan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Check the references, it was picked and shown at *Four* Festivals, The Eigasai Film Festival in Czekoslavakia, The Powell St Festival, HIFF and The Japanese Film Festival in Melbourne. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment from what I'm seeing on google it's surprising that neither Kazuo Yamagishi or the other documentary about them, Ramen Heads, seem to have pages. Creating a page Kazuo Yamagishi faeturing both documentaries seems like a possible option? Artw (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tsukemen does have a page but probably isn't very useful as a merge target. Artw (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah he does have a page, but it's pretty brief Kazuo_Yamagishi..and I don't think he would be researchable (unless you read Japanese) to find much more on him. If "the God of Ramen" doco info was added, it would be 95% of the content, so as mentioned, not a suitable merge target. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone figure out if there's an article for this documentary at ja.wiki? That can sometimes be helpful for finding sources for a subject when there are transliteration issues to deal with in search. valereee (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Valereee: There isn't a Japanese article. This three-page review from Sankei News would contribute toward notability, as would this article from Oricon. Neither is used in the current article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks, @Nihonjoe! I read them but wasn't sure how to incorporate, so I added them into a Further reading section so that maybe someone else can! valereee (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a useful discussion about possible sources but not a lot of opinions on what should be done with this article. Any possibility of an option to redirect or merge in addition to the nomination to delete and the opinion to Speedy keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do think the additional sources listed above create enough notability for it to meet WP:GNG and WP:NFILM (and also more specifically WP:NFO in terms of the festival screenings). It's not the most solid case of notability if what's here is all there is, but it does have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is specifically what WP:GNG asks for. - Aoidh (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:ONEEVENT is not applicable here; this is an article on an event, not a person, so the appropriate guideline is WP:EVENT. Many "delete" !voters have cited that the event fails WP:LASTING, but that is only one of several criteria. Ultimately, the various criteria in WP:EVENT are relatively subjective, and with an evenly split !vote count and without one side's arguments being clearly stronger than the other's, this seems to be the appropriate result. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Haider[edit]

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

The tragic death of a little boy in Afghanistan briefly caught media attention because of the rescue attempt. PRODed, denied. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL apply here - Haider himself, other than for the manner of his passing, is not notable. "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Afghanistan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A sad event, but no evidence of WP:LASTING. WWGB (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many sources including BBC and Deutsche Welle reported the event. See here [[1]] and [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawad Haqbeen (talk • contribs) 01:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:LASTING.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Jawad Haqbeen. Ainty Painty (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting coverage. BilletsMauves^€500 08:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the two guides/policies are cited in error. I'll explain: WP:ONEEVENT is satisfied. The nominator is correct that Haider is not notable outside the event, and that's fine, because this is an event article, not a biography. WP:ONEEVENT basically helps us chose between an article about a person or an event, and they creator of this article followed the correct path. The relevant part of WP:NOTMEMORIAL is correctly mentioned above, wikipedia isn't the place to memorialise friends etc, but in the context of this event making the front page of global news for days, it is unlikely that the editor created this because they are friends or family of the victim. What we should be considering is WP:EVENT. That gives us a few factors to consider, I'll paraphrase them here:

WP:LASTING did the event lead to something else. Not yet. So on this sub-part of the guidance, we are guided to delete
WP:GEOSCOPE did the event get wide geographic coverage. Absolutely yes. On this sub-part of the guidance, we are guided to keep
WP:DEPTH the coverage needs to be deep, not passing mentions. Ideally feature length articles. I saw more than passing mentions, but not in depth coverage, this on this sub-point, it's 50/50 to me.
WP:PERSISTENCE was there just a burst of coverage, or was it ongoing. It was a burst. News seems to have stopped covering this after a few days. But then events in Afghanistan were dramatic this year, and I'm judging this by English sources only. Guidance leans me towards delete, but I'm giving some leniency due to the location.
WP:DIVERSE calls for different sources. There really was a wide variety of sources, this sub points guides us to keep

So the article meets two and fails two (one with caveats) and is 50/50 on one. That's just above 50% as per my perspective. I think we should give it some time to see if the coverage is persistent. From memory backed by searches, this was huge news for a few days. Let's keep it for now. CT55555 (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If we just look at this through the lens of WP:GNG then notability is absolutely there. I fully agree with CT55555's analysis above concerning WP:ONEEVENT. As far as WP:NOTNEWS my knee-jerk reaction was to say that it applies, but if you click on WP:NOTNEWS and actually read the bullet points, which of those applies and makes this worth deletion? The closest I could find is "news reports" but this is not routine news and while yes it is a single event (WP:ONEEVENT) the notability does appear to be enduring given the global coverage of the event. - Aoidh (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Watering trough. ✗plicit 00:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abreuvoir[edit]

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

This is a glorified dicdef (or, actually, two different dicdefs for the same word cobbled together into an article). The translations should be at Wiktionary, with the rest. BD2412 T 22:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 22:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect to watering trough which is clearly the primary name in this language. Mangoe (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into watering trough. There seems to be some information here worth preserving. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to watering trough as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to watering trough as above but only maybe have a small mention of it. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 20:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Patterson (author)[edit]

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

Trying really hard to reach notability, but sadly falling short. Article created by a WP:SPA and moved directly to mainspace. I looked for sources on the quotes about the book that are currently cited to the book's back cover, but even if they checked out, that's still a failure of WP:INHERITED and WP:NAUTHOR. Apart from that, just some press releases about being hired as an executive. BrigadierG (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Businesspeople. BrigadierG (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something about a crime with a person with the same name as him, no sources about this author found. Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 television stations in Florida. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WXOD-LD[edit]

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

Non-notable DTV America LPTV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty basic stub with no issues outside it just not having much history. Nate • (chatter) 00:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in Florida Typical of a class of LPTVs that don't have enough to say about them to meet the GNG. There are too many of these. A subchannel listing in a list article makes sense. Not this. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in Florida, not notable for separate article, even if only a stub. Kierzek (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby King (fighter)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Highest ranking by Fight Matrix is 94th, and he has not appeared in any of Sherdog's top 10 list. I don't know why people are still using NSPORT guidelines that were changed in March for articles. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 19:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Utah. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG [3] and [4] among others. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although there does not seem to be that much significant coverage at the moment he appears to be a fairly prominent competitor.[5] Zafir94 (talk)

The sources mentioned at this discussion are a video highlight and two sources reporting on the same comments he made after a fight stating that he should be ranked by Bellator and deserved more recognition. Of course that was before he lost his next fight. Doesn't seem like significant independent coverage to me. Papaursa (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went back to look at the sources for this article, besides the ones I commented on a few days ago. Fight announcements and results are typical for every fighter and are insufficient to confer WP notability. I don't see multiple instances of the significant independent coverage required to show WP notability. I have no objection to someone making a draft copy of this article to work on, but the AfD discussion needs to run its course. Papaursa (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Zafir94 (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zafir94, do you want to change your "bolded" opinion above? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Papaursa, as lacking notability. It is likely too soon. An indication of a pseudo biography or a resume can be found when there is only professional accomplishments, which are only parts of a BLP, and content such as "Starting his first fighting career...", "Starting out his MMA career...", and "King made his Bellator debut" are good indicators pointing to "just a resume". The elaborate "MMArecordbox" does not enhance an article as some seems to think and being a "fairly prominent competitor" is not a criteria to advance notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources provided are routine for MMA and do not contain SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brayton Purcell[edit]

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

As law firms go, this is not a particularly large or far-reaching entity. I do not think this meets WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 18:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Companies. BD2412 T 18:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 45 lawyers isn't that large of a firm, nothing national. Big city law office. No sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Draft:Durable (company) and redirect to Durability.. Durable (company) seems more better because Durable is ambiguous and has competition with the accepted dictionary meaning, and moving to draft will enable Baptx have more time to work on the article. (non-admin closure) Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Durable[edit]

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

Contested PROD. From my PROD statement: I doubt the topic is notable and I was unable to find any sources that could contribute to it meeting the WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, including the sources on the German Wikipedia. The contesting editor (User:Baptx) added some better non-company-affiliated sources to the article, but I found that [6] is not significant coverage, only giving two sentences' mention. The other one, [7], is paywalled but even if its content is independent (see WP:ORGIND), I doubt it has significant coverage especially if it is like this non-paywalled article on the same event. Notability is not inherited, and an article that primarily discusses an executive staffing change likely does not give enough WP:CORPDEPTH to its coverage about the company itself.

Due to the page name that the article is at, I think that the page should become a redirect to Durability (adjective-to-noun redirect) again. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 17:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 17:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought it would be best to respond to the concerns that article creator User:Baptx had about the deletion here. Sources must be independent, reliable, give significant coverage of the subject, and should be secondary sources to contribute to the topic meeting the WP:GNG (or WP:NCORP, which offers more guidance). Though the sources added are secondary, in my judgment both are trivial coverage. Though it does have a page on the German Wikipedia, that doesn't necessarily make it worthy of an article on the English Wikipedia, especially as how I think that the sources there are deficient. I did try to find sources myself before PRODing the article, but I didn't find any good sources (it also doesn't help that I can't read German and must rely on translation). (The article has also been problematic for years; it hasn't had a single independent source since it was created until today) —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 17:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Instead of the paywalled article, we can use another one like https://www.highlight-web.de/6059/durable-rolf-schifferens/ which shows that the company is notable enough in Germany to have an article on its own, in addition to being visited by a prime minister in the article https://www.welt.de/regionales/mecklenburg-vorpommern/article239508845/Schwesig-besucht-Polen-Stettin-als-Entwicklungsmotor.html. I don't see a problem with the article page name because there is a link to Durability article. But if necessary, it is still possible to change the name to "Durable (company)" and create a disambiguation page "Durable". For other advantages of keeping the article, I wrote about it in the talk page of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Durable#Secondary_sources. Baptx (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The highlight-web article does not give any notability because it (1) is a routine coverage of the arrival/departure of personnel (listed as an example of trivial coverage at Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH) and does not give significant coverage of the company itself. (2) It is also not independent of the company with the content coming directly from a press release. A visit by a prime minister also doesn't contribute to notability because of how little coverage that visit generated (not significant coverage). It's not so much a question of "does this deserve an article" as it is "does adequate sourcing exist that could be used to make an article? If not, then the topic should not have an article".
- I mentioned the page name because I wanted to indicate that I think the article should be pseudodeleted; I'd rather not talk about disambiguation or moving the page unless there is a consensus to keep the article. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 20:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I should probably address how much having an article benefits the reader. I don't think it benefits the reader as currently written because it only gives a short description about what the company makes, which anyone that wants to look up the company probably already knows. In addition, sourcing doesn't exist that lets the article be larger than a few probably-meaningless sentences (i.e. Durable was visited by a politician on [date]) while also not being promotional and not relying on what the company says about itself for sources. There simply isn't good information to use to write a useful article on the company. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 21:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The English article can be improved by translating contributions from the German article. For information, a request to delete the German article was already made and rejected: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/31._Januar_2008#Durable_(erl.,_bleibt). --Baptx (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - The dewiki request to delete the article should have no bearing on this discussion because (1) the discussion occured in 2008, and community opinions on what should and shouldn't be in Wikipedia, among other things, have probably shifted since then and (2) the deletion discussion occured on another wiki; the German Wikipedia has different policies than this wiki. Dewiki (link to policy: de:WP:RKU), considers any buisness with over 1000 employees or a profit(?) of 100k euros to be notable. That is not true on the English Wikipedia. That (along with business tradition) is why it was kept; that policy doesn't apply here. As to information from there improving the current english wikipedia article, I find that unlikely given that most of the material seems to be sourced from the company itself.
    - I did find a book source that was added around the time of the AfD [8] that seems to have been removed in a 2010 edit war. That book, unfortunately, is not independent of the company because it is authored/published/whatever by the German Marketing Organization and, in my mind, is closely affiliated with the company. It otherwise seems to be good quality. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 03:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft:Durable (company) and redirect title to Durability. This company is not the primary topic, even if it is notable, which I doubt. BD2412 T 22:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to Durable (company) without draft should be fine also, so the interlanguage links will still work and people from the German Wikipedia will find the English article more easily if they want to contribute. Also drafts are automatically deleted after some time so the article could lose all contributions history. Baptx (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moving it to Durable (company) would mean keeping the article, which I am opposed to given my concerns above (primarily poor available sourcing and a lack of information to provide to readers, resulting in deficient notability). —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 02:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support move, rename, and redirect per BD2412. As per Nom there is no indication of notability (also noting ambiguity) for a stand alone page. A stub-class article needs to have at least some "rudimentary information about a subject", certainly more than a "dictionary entry". "Durable" is ambiguous and has competition with the accepted dictionary meaning: "able to withstand wear, pressure, or damage; hard-wearing." While entries from other editions of Wikipedia is certainly sought it does not mean coverage in another language gives an automatic pass (WP:NOTINHERITED) for inclusion in this encyclopedia. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm okay with draftification, partly because Baptx might want plenty of time to incubate the article. However, if Baptx doesn't have interest in improving the article in draftspace, then I don't think draftification is much different than outright redirection (which is fine). —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 17:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Baptx: (sorry but I don't Twitter) The article is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany#Article alerts and I am sure there is a place on the German Wikipedia to advertise a need for help. A problem on this encyclopedia is that primary and press release sources do not contribute to notability. If being moved to draft, as an ATD, is seen as a possible temporary reprieve, that is better than the obvious policy given direction that it can be deleted as not notable. If nobody decides to contribute then it is possible there simply is a lack of notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clam Shack Blues[edit]

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

Article about a short film, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, we don't automatically want to maintain an article about every single film that exists, and are looking for markers of significance such as notable film awards and/or the reception of significant critical attention from professional film critics -- but the only notability claim on offer here is that the film exists, and the only sourcing is a small cluster of "film shot locally" coverage in the community hyperlocals serving the small town where it was shot, which isn't enough coverage to hand it a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to have a stronger notability claim than just existing. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 09:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed Church of Nepal[edit]

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

There are no independent reliable sources providing significant coverage. Brief mentions say more about the earthquake than the church. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Nepal. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Faith in Focus article (published by the Reformed Churches of New Zealand) is indeed an independent reliable source providing significant coverage. St Anselm (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources don't need to be wholly independent of Christianity to present independent coverage of a Christian topic. Sources present in article evidence notability readily and clearly. Reliability of at least two sources is good. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suspect that the founding pastor, Ram Nepal, is also notable, since it looks like he is the same man profiled by Christianity Today in 1992.[9] St Anselm (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE:- Delete please:- Reason:- Advertisement :- All private links to private websites. Multiple Error 404 pages. I might advise holding on to it for a moment, but please provide reliable sources from The Kantipur or such. - (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- According to the article, this is a denomination of 300 churches. We normally keep denominational articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: I'm sorry to have to lose respect for you due to your cognitive bias. A plea for WP:OUTCOMES is circular reasoning. I urge you to point to an SNG or at least tell us that you like it. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an organization and therefore the appropriate guideline is WP:NORG which required in-depth sources which speak directly about the topic organization and also contains "Independent Content" from sources unaffiliated with the topic org. Not a single source meets the criteria. First, all of the sources which are affiliated with the Evangelical church - they fail ORGIND as they are not considered "Independent Content". Even leaving that aside and looking at the content of the best of the non-PRIMARY articles: we have an article from "Evangelical Times" reporting on earthquake-damaged churches - no in-depth information on the topic organization fails ORGDEPTH; we have a PDF with an article primarily about Ram Nepal and almost nothing about the topic org, fails ORGDEPTH also; we have an Earthquake appeal, fails ORGDEPTH and ORGIND; we have an article discussing the involvement of MINTS in Nepal, fails ORGIND and ORDDEPTH; finally we have a mention-in-passing in a list. None of the Keep !voters have provided any guideline-based reasoning nor pointed to specific sources and explained why they meet our criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails NORG. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly about "sources which are affiliated with the Evangelical church" not being considered independent: that's never been the way WP:INDEPENDENT has been understood by the community. St Anselm (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the definition of "Independent Content" in WP:ORGIND which is the appropriate guideline for this organization. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent RSN discussion that found that religious sources can be reliable sources for religious subjects. If you stretch independent too far you could argue that atheist publications are not independent of atheists. I have no opinion on this AfD Atlantic306 (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and User:HighKing. Had it been notable, there would be independent sources in local medial as well. I found none.nirmal (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the very thing we can't be sure of, since local media is likely to be offline and in Nepali.St Anselm (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm:-Can you give some examples of Nepali language sources? I am native and can verify. Best! nirmal (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! No, I can't. Have you searched for the Nepali name? (It's on the website but part of an image, so I can't copy and paste it.) St Anselm (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @StAnselm: Sorry, I could not find any content in Nepali either. Please see for yourself Nepali: रिफर्मड चर्च अफ नेपाल. nirmal (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom, HighKing, and nirmal. One of our fundamental principles is Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" that includes All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources... The policy on verifiability includes Wikipedia:No original research. Primary sources, or those closely affiliated, do not advance notability. While there is continued minority religious persecution the federal, democratic republican state (a multi-party parliamentary republic?) claims to provide a clear provision (Article 23) for religious freedom and tolerance. A church with a supposed 800 member organizations (56,956 sq mi) is not small so "someone" would surely write about it. This article and ones like Continental Reformed Protestantism (tagged since 2008 with no sources) should have secondary sources not as a result of earthquake damage. The WP:BURDEN does not rest on those that have done a WP:BEFORE (d #3). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC) == Otr500 (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent coverage. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks independent sources. Fails notability. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Netsuke#Artists. Tone 09:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sōken Kishō[edit]

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

I see no evidence the subject passes NBOOK or GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, and Japan. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Netsuke#Artists where it is already briefly described. The book appears to be famous for its descriptions of individual artists, see e.g. (Brinkley 1902) Japan Its History Art and Literature, multiple pages (searching "Soken Kisho" without diacritics shows other such references), Worldcat, but I am having difficulty finding sources describing the full work in a fashion that would support a standalone article. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect but "already briefly described" is also not the full story, since the description at netsuke is too long too and it was added by the same user at the same time. The list is not really helpful and a lot of the names on it are impossibly vague common last names and first names. 125.8.49.105 (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a particular opinion to delete or not, but I agree with the previous IP: the list of names really seems a bit dubious. I did my best to correct romanisation errors, and found at least one probable error in the original, but I question whether a list like this is helpful, or whether it should be added on the basis of a single source. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the deletion policy, but the only thing I can say is that this is not a list book. This book is about sword fittings(this is what I found when I looked up the English translation of the Japanese word '刀装具'; it refers to the decoration of the sword) and the netsuke masters list is just an appendix. As far as I could find out, the book is not very well known and the people listed are not prominent enough to be written in Netsuke#Artists. --Tmv (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"By 1781, Inaba Tsuryu (Shineimon) of Osaka, a connoisseur of sword fittings, could devote almost one volume of his Sōken Kishō (which can be translated as "A Treasury of Sword Fittings and Rare Accessories") to fifty-five netsuke carvers of his day and their designs... By the nineteenth century, however, many of the carvers cited in the Sōken Kishō had come to be considered originators of schools in their own right." Barbra Teri Okada, Netsuke: Masterpieces from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Harry N. Abrams, Publishers, New York 1982, p. 14 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Even if this is an important book in Japanese, it does not mean that it is notable in English. The article consists of a list of practitioners described in the book, of whom I think none has an English WP article; at least I saw no link. Japanese sword fittings may be a significant subject in art history, but I am struggling to understand how this fits into the English WP except as a list; and not really even then. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or Merge) with Netsuke. Netherzone (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Netsuke#Artists where it is already covered. While the names on the list (from the appendix) does not show any notability, that is a separate issue that would seem best addressed on that article. Otr500 (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Rotted[edit]

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

Tagged for notability and begging for refs since 2012 Loew Galitz (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The band clearly lacks notability at all but the regional or local level.TH1980 (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe article is not relevant, does not meet the requirements WP:BAND. --Mestrossino (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Femke (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Areej Mohsin Darwish[edit]

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. Fails WP:GNG. Amon Stutzman (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Oman. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is a notable business women in the Arab world and was the Arab business women of the year in 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Woman_of_the_Year_Award (SalahEldin1 (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - is not notable. Mathmo ^Talk 15:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She was named 2nd most powerful businesswomen in the country of Oman in 2020. Named Arab business women of the year in 2021. https://www.albawaba.com/business/top-5-most-powerful-omani-businesswomen-2020

https://www.arabnews.com/node/2038016/business-economy (SalahEldin1 (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Clearly notable based on sources and position in Arab world. And I'm concerned if source searching in the English language has been the basis for determining non-notability, if so, many, many notable non-English speaking people will be proposed for deletion. El Dubs (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep, seems to satisfy WP:GNG and overall achievemnts. Loew Galitz (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article easily meets WP:GNG, and did even at the time of nomination before additional sources were added. WP:GNG is met, since there are more than enough reliable sources that provide significant coverage and are independent of the subject. It's not even a borderline case, this article's subject overwhelmingly meets the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. - Aoidh (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zazie Restaurant[edit]

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

Finding nothing on Google other than routine and local coverage. It's great that this restaurant is better-than-most to work for, but the coverage of their hourly wage doesn't raise them to the level of notability. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and California. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be fluff piece. Paying your workers is good, just not notable for here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete, fails WP:GNG and no evidence of natability as business. Loew Galitz (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCOMPANY, appears to be promotional advertising more than a Wikipedia article. Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG, WP:NCOMPANY and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indications of notability, fails NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV, let alone WP:NCORP. Ovinus (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Knox County, Indiana. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner Station, Indiana[edit]

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

Seems to be a train station, not a town. Non-notable rail spot. Mangoe (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Knox County, Indiana. There is no information about this place whatsoever beyond basic stats. Even the reference in the book not necessarily refers to this particular location, because this ref speaks of "former place of Wagner Station". Loew Galitz (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Moss[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Violation of BLP. No significant coverage DavidEfraim (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. DavidEfraim (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete advert, no independent coverage. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow City Duma District 24[edit]

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

No reason for a separate page. Moscow city duma deputies are not notable as well as this former constituency Morpho achilles (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep - The deletion reasoning is Wikipedia:JNN, you need to expand on why this article is not notable. And this statement that constituency articles are not notable, or that city deputies are not notable, is not currently borne out with wikipedia practice. Certainly we have equivalent articles on the constituencies of sub-national legislatures (eg Lambeth and Southwark (London Assembly constituency), New York City's 6th City Council district, Los Angeles City Council District 6, Ward 4, St. Louis City, 11th Ward of New Orleans, Peartree (ward), Eichsfeld I, Kin Ming (constituency), Ward 3 Etobicoke—Lakeshore, etc) as well as those who sit in such bodies (Category:Members of the London Assembly, Category:New York City Council members, Category:Minneapolis City Council members, Category:Toronto city councillors, etc), not to mention those for the Moscow City Duma (Category:Deputies of Moscow City Duma). When you say "No reason for a separate page", are you actually suggesting a merge? Where to? The Moscow City Duma would be overwhelmed by the material in this article and that of the other 45 constituences (Category:Moscow City Duma districts). If your startpoint is that these districts are not notable, why has only this one been nominated? Is this a test case, or cherry picking? Leaning procedural close here unless this nomination can be clarified with actual reasons to delete beyond WP:JNN. Spokoyni (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my view to keep, no following up to inadequate nomination, and wikipedia precedence and practice allows voting/electoral districts for these legislatures. Spokoyni (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Better reasons need to be listed as to why it is non-notable. On the other hand, why does the topic meet GEOLAND?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it meets GEOLAND because it is a "Populated, legally recognized place". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep - It looks like wikipedia has a tradition of having articles for voting/electoral distrricts. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No policy- or guideline-based rationale for deletion provided. If the nominator is advocating for merger, then that should be done at an appropriate venue. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Femke (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Hoorickx[edit]

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

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Belgium. –dlthewave ☎ 19:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: a rough translation of the German Wikipedia entry shows that he is also notable as a painter and spy. St Anselm (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you really need a source, here it is. St Anselm (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. His bio goes into info about him being a spy, with more info here and at the DE.wiki article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on the basis of the sources on the de:Wiki article, which the nom clearly did not look at. (Has WP:BEFORE been abolished now?) One more among many: his works held in the Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique. There are plenty more. Ingratis (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Clearly is notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very clearly notable as others demonstrated above.--Darwinek (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:BEFORE is your friend not food. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Field hockey at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#Japan. ✗plicit 00:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toshio Ohtsu[edit]

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

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. –dlthewave ☎ 19:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Field hockey at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#Japan as WP:ATD, with no prejudice to restoring when enough information is found to create a start-class article. A books search suggests significant coverage is plausible, but the snippets provided do not provide enough detail for an article. Jumpytoo Talk 06:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jumpy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Uttarakhand cricketers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Manori[edit]

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

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. –dlthewave ☎ 19:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:CRIN. St Anselm (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid argument here. CRIN is a wikiproject essay which does not offer any presumption of notability. The relevant SNG is NCRIC, and since the subject fails this, sources need to be found to show that GNG is met. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how AfD works. Anyone is allowed to appeal to a notability essay. That's always been the case. See also: WP:ONLYESSAY. St Anselm (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, the criteria you are (presumably) relying on here were rejected by the community in a well attended RFC (WP:NSPORTS2022), hence their removal from the actual guideline just a few months ago. You are simply highlighting that the cricket project essay has yet to be updated in line with community consensus. Also, please refer to WP:ATA with regards to making vague wave/just notable !votes. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to List of Uttarakhand cricketers I'm not seeing enough for a GNG pass here, despite the confusion over the spelling of his name, with CA suggesting Ankit Manor and Cricinfo suggesting Ankit Manori, however with both and previous on Indian cricketers who've played a few games, not really seeing enough. I would suggest redirect per WP:ATD, but the list page would need to be created, but perhaps that can be done before the AfD process is complete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list is quite short in this case (51 players per CA). Usually I'd do it, but I'll be away from the machine I can easily access CA on for a week, so it couldn't happen before 8 August at the earliest. This is, though, the best alternative in this case and the list could be created as an incomplete list - this has happened before and can work as a placeholder until someone with CA access can get to the list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per RugbyFan. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This seems the most logical step. His career to date hasn't set the world on fire and I doubt there will be in depth coverage in Hindi sources. StickyWicket (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of a valid redirect target; otherwise redirect. Clearly fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list is done now. It saved me listening to two family members arguing again... Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I should say that this is obviously going to be a non-destructive redirect. That way if we ever get a pile of sources on him the article is much easier to write. I'd prefer that a short note was added to the list when the article is redirected - I'm happy to do it if someone pings me. Ta. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per Rugbyfan22. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyra Kennedy[edit]

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

Has no real notability other than being a former politician’s granddaughter. Think about it, Malia and Sasha Obama don’t even have their own articles. StevenBjerke97 talk 18:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StevenBjerke97 talk 18:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find any substantial coverage in the few sources I found on her. Rogermx (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:GNG. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pr nom. W C M_email 18:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 18:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Ofure[edit]

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

Promotional BLP of a non notable real estate expert and life coach, sourced to puff pieces in the press. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She is covered in reliable sources like Vanguard, The Nation, The Guardian, Punch, Business Day, and others. Can you mention a single phrase in the article that gives impression of being "promotional"? Insight 3 (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, routine coverage of an individual, reads like a liknedin post. The entire article seems promotional as she only seems to do routine things in life. Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would media cover a "non-notable" person's "routine" life? Insight 3 (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because she paid them to? Mccapra (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do we prove that? The cited articles are not press releases, neither they are bylined as "Featured post", "Editor" or "Agency report" to be suspected of being sponsored content. Insight 3 (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bums in seats/eyes on a page. They cover what will generate ad revenue, not really what's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that's what "Human Interest" stories are and news sources are more interested in getting clicks for an article than on notability. They're trying to make money, we aren't. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have cleaned up the article for any possible promotional tone. Removed unreliable sources, Bellanaija and others, per WP:NGRS. Plz revisit the article. Insight 3 (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, the subject passes WP:NBASIC. The guideline also says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I have added 2 more references. Insight 3 (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ANYBIO. It clearly says people should have done one of the following:
The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field
The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography

Although multiple sources tell us this individual is real, coverage is not significant. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its not WP:ANYBIO, but WP:NBASIC that applies here for notability. The subject has non-trivial coverage in multiple sources. Insight 3 (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for a more in-depth analysis of sources added to the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per @Oaktree b‘s rationales. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you placed your vote here, ignoring all the discussion below? Much of Oaktree's "rationales" are presented down there. Insight 3 (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know why Wikipedia placed my comment where it did. I just clicked on “Reply” and typed. 🤷‍♂️ Bgsu98 (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even after the clean up, I'm trying to understand what she founded or why it's notable. Beyond simply stating facts, there is nothing to show that's she's much different than anyone else with a business career would be. Selling real estate is not notable and very routine, the Lifecard company thing doesn't tell me what it does or why it's notable. It could be a Fortune 500 company or it could be an e-commerce thing she's trying to launch. It appears she trains other real estate salespeople. That's usually a requirement to get a sales license for real estate, at least in my corner of the world. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our personal opinions and likes/dislikes don't matter here. Wikipedia is all about significant media coverage and the reliability of cited sources and that is what she has, making her different from other businesspersons. The real questions to be discussed here are whether:

1) the cited sources give significant coverage, i.e., talk mainly about her or just passing mentions?

2) the cited sources when combined make a case for notability or not?

3) the cited sources are independent of her? or they are press releases or sponsored content?

It would be beneficial if you could analyze the sources in this way, otherwise you have already voted "delete" above. Insight 3 (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, NO for all above. Oaktree b (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 3 new references have been added to the article:

Comment these three are more of the same churnalism. The first two are puff pieces about her book launch. They contain lengthy paragraphs of quotation from her, not in depth coverage of her. The third (CED magazine) isn’t a piece of original journalism at all and says “source: Business Day”. Mccapra (talk) 05:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask again, "How do we prove that its churnalism? The cited articles are not press releases, neither they are bylined as "Featured post", "Editor" or "Agency report" to be suspected of being sponsored content (see WP:NGRS)"? And its not unusual for news features to quote subject's own words, this doesn't simply depreciate the source. We just don't take the info described inside the quotation marks.

For the third reference, the source "Business Day" itself is reliable, but is not available online. Insight 3 (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So we remove the quotes and we have three pieces confirming she wrote a book, with nothing of substance. Still nothing notable for our purposes. Of note, the Sun piece is tagged as "advertisement". The third source is written by Grace, the source of the article here. Have you even read what we require for sources? These are not acceptable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement tag in The Sun?? Not that I can see. The CED Mag's page has tagged "Grace Ofure Ibhakhomu", the article is not written by her. Otherwise, how could she write about herself in "third person"?

Also in a BLP, not all cited sources are supposed to be covering subject's whole life and career from A to Z. A biography is based on the info taken from multiple sources. The first two sources are about her new books and they are cited in the "book section" of the article. They indicate the author is notable enough to be covered along with the news of her new books in national newspapers. Insight 3 (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra... I'm waiting for your response. Insight 3 (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I agree I don’t see where the piece in the Sun is tagged as an advertisement. Also the CED piece is tagged with GO’s name as you say, not attributed to her. So I agree that neither source has the shortcomings that Oaktree b suggests. Nevertheless these are classic pieces of churnalism. The ‘journalist’ basically gives the subject free rein to tell the world how marvellous they are, or takes a piece authored by the subject or their PR team and slightly reworks it to make it look like they interviewed them. These pieces are the opposite of in depth coverage and this kind of fawning profile is never accepted on Wikipedia as indicating notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been an advertisement for the pop up box that wouldn't load to be fair. I'm still not sure the second source doesn't count as churnalism, but I digress. Oaktree b (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra Thanks but I was looking for your response to my above reply to your comment, not to Oaktree b's assessment. Anyway, I want to conclude it now:

1) Do you agree now that the cited sources are not "sponsored" or "paid" stuff as you suspected earlier? If yes, then it means you agree the sources are independent.

2) I think you have no issue with the reliability of the cited sources per WP:NGRS, right?

3) The sources mainly and directly talk about the subject and 14 sources together make a case for notability per WP:NBASIC (as it says:"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"), so the coverage is significant, isn't it?

4) Regarding your charge of churnalism, I would say the WP:GNG doesn't say anything about the "quality of journalism" and rightly so, because differentiating between journalism and churnalism can often be very subjective thing. Though I disagree that all the cited references in the article are works of churnalism, but even if we assume you are right, then most of Nigerian sources are like this. For example, consider Folorunso Alakija, the richest Nigerian businesswoman. She is lucky that she also has media coverage in some Western sources (like Times, Forbes, etc), but when it comes to Nigerian sources, just see the "churnalism" in this reference: Vanguard

And the "puff piece" here: The Nation

Now take another top Nigerian businesswoman Stella Chinyelu Okoli. She relies mostly on Nigerian sources for her notability and by your standards the cited articles are no better than Grace Ofure. Just have a look at 2 of them:

Vanguard, a classic puff piece (as you say)

This Day

I'm not suggesting at all that these bios should be removed from Wikipedia and I am quite aware of that two wrongs don't make a right. I am just making the point this is how journalism usually works in most parts of the globe (including Nigeria) and the notable subjects should not pay the price for poor journalism. Insight 3 (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point to remember is that if these were published anywhere else, she would not at all be notable. I don't think we can give a pass for poor journalism. Founding a company isn't notable, teaching a class for real estate agents isn't notable. It's all rather routine stuff she's doing. Same as anyone else in her position would do. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The CED piece lists her as "visionary business leader and iconic force in the global real estate market". Puffery, hence churnalism. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping but I don’t think I have anything more to add and haven’t changed my view. Articles with this quality of referencing get deleted all the time and I’m just not seeing what would get this subject over the bar. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. I guess we are done here then. Insight 3 (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To sum up the discussion from my side:

I asked it twice, "how can the sources be suspected as "sponsored" or "paid" content, when they are not press releases, neither they are bylined as "Featured post", "Editor" or "Agency report" to be suspected of being sponsored content (per WP:NGRS)?", the nominator and others never directly responded to it. This is a critical inquiry because if this is not the case, then clearly the sources are independent of the subject.
Even when I broke everything into points for them, they repeated just 2 words "puff pieces" and "churnalism" again and again without mentioning any Wiki policy to back and clarifying that how the "assumed churnalism" is fault of the subject if the cited sources are independent.

Now I leave it up to the community and the admins. Thanks everyone. Insight 3 (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's more the fact that both use flowery language as I highlighted above. For an iconic force in the global real estate market, she's unknown outside of her home country, which tells me it's not notable and "puffing up" her stature. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update. One more recent reference regarding her book launch has appeared:

Business Day ... Needless to say though, The Business Day (Nigeria) is a reliable source per WP:NGRS. Also to be noted, the 3 cited references for her books are mutually independent in their reporting of the same event. Insight 3 (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very brief mention of a book launch, reliable yes, trivial mention, yes. Not terribly useful. Oaktree b (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify due to WP:NOTPROMO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, I request to draftify the article. I will resubmit it whenever I find more detailed press coverage for the subject. Insight 3 (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anathallo#EPs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hymns (EP)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, the only source in this article seems to be a blog, and I was not able to find any sources other than blogs from a search. Suggest a redirect to Anathallo#EPs. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Michigan. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anathallo#EPs, per nom. Violates WP:NALBUM. AiGenly (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ornella Sathoud[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Ghana. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234, I am not sure you did a thorough search about the subject before nominating the article for deletion. The article is still being improved, however a thorough search would have helped in avoiding this.

[11], [12],[13], [14], [15], [16], [17],[18],[19]

Go through the sources provided. Thank you. Ampimd (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be significant coverage in reliable sources per Ampimd Mujinga (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage of the subject appears in multiple reliable third-party sources. JTtheOG (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article meets WP:GNG based on some (but not all) of the sources above. - Aoidh (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by Ampimd passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people considered polymaths[edit]

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

There isn't widespread agreement as to what qualifies someone as a polymath, so inclusion guidelines are open to interpretation, and the topic of the list may thus be unencyclopedic (failing WP:LISTN). There was also an AfD in 2006 on what looks to have been a very similar article, citing concerns about appropriateness for this topic and verifiability. ComplexRational (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I remember this discussion from years ago. It was had in more than one place. Many people do more than one thing, no need to have a list for them. Dream Focus 01:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps). Redirect is the most reasonable outcome here, if there are more sources, the article can easily be brought back. Tone 09:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jørgen Nielsen (footballer, born 1923)[edit]

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

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are articles about his stint at Dundee F.C.: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results/1900-01-01/1949-12-31?basicsearch=%22jørgen%20nielsen%22%20dundee&phrasesearch=jørgen%20nielsen&somesearch=dundee&exactsearch=false&retrievecountrycounts=false Robby.is.on (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @Robby.is.on:. That was just one search on one non-Danish newspaper archive, and there are 5 articles about him. In addition, WP:BEFORE has not ben done, as Jorgen Nielsen having been a top flight player and Denmark International during the 1940s-50s, this is about offline sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robby. Giant Snowman 18:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The newspaper clippings are only passing mentions of transactions, and one of them just describes Nielsen as "tall and dark." This sort of coverage does not pass the WP:GNG bar. Kges1901 (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kges1901:, You do realize that what you can see from that page is only a tiny preview of each much longer article? Also, that was just one search on one non-Danish newspaper archive, and there are already 5 articles about him. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not done. Article needs improvement but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When the article is under 500 words, I have found that the likelihood that there is enough coverage for an article is pretty low, and from what I can see of the articles they seem to fit the pattern of being relatively passing routine mentions. Because Jørgen Nielsen is a common name in Denmark, we can't be certain that newspaper articles are actually about him, and many of them are from outside of the time period that he was actively playing during. making it unlikely that they are actually about him. Using more restrictive searches in the newspaper database such as this significantly reduces the number of hits, which are mostly not from the right period. Even using booleans in newspaper database searches is not foolproof because they will still pick up on unconnected usages of words in unrelated articles. Kges1901 (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's more from Danish newspapers: https://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediestream/search/Jørgen%20Nielsen%20dundee Unfortunately, the article content is not accessible to me. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps), if no-one finds enough SIGCOV to keep. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robby. Worst case, redirect per Struway2 if nothing else can found on him, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The refs are woeful and it seems to be a case of counting quantity over measuring quality of sources. There is no coverage here. scope_creep^Talk 10:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think the keep arguers have actually distinguished articles on this person from others, and I do not see clear arguments that any of these articles provide the in depth, significant coverage that is called for by GNG. Not every person who was named dropped in newspapers briefly because of their athletic activities is notable, and I see no presentation or argument that any of the name drops constitute anything more significant than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amateur footballer with no significant coverage. Alternatively redirect to List of Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps) per Struway2. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The newspaper articles were found. Pre-internet player, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE we can always redirect later to preserve the article's history. Giant Snowman is often correct about these WP:SPORTSCRIT articles involving soccer. Lightburst (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pre-internet so we need to understand that sourcing is going to be different. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The existence of search results does not contribute toward notability, and at least a couple of the "keep" !votes are meaningless word salads; however, nobody seems to have analyzed the Danish sources in detail either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, as while it isn't unreasonable to imagine offline sources do exist in Danish, we can't just assume they do and keep on that basis alone. The BNA search results don't assert notability, even from the little that can be retrieved from the free search preview and his time in the UK seemed very limited, so unlikely to much in British media. Redirecting seems the best compromise. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, although the title is not a search term anyone would ever use... Anyway, there is NO presumption of notability or SIGCOV afforded to footballers. You cannot justify a presumption of SIGCOV based on someone having played football at a "high level" because that exact justification has been deprecated. Therefore, claims that sources exist in an inaccessible database where all we get is hits on a very common name must be rejected. Additionally, the lack of even a single cited SIGCOV source means this article fails the requirements for sportsperson articles and would need exceptionally compelling IAR arguments to be retained. JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid rationale for keeping an article, and no evidence has been provided that there is sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 09:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shariz Ahmad[edit]

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

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Netherlands. –dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [20], [21] and [22], along with the fact he's currently playing international cricket for the Netherlands. At worst, restore the article's redirect. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first of those three sources contributes anything towards GNG (and even then it's minimal); the second is a club announcement (so not independent), and the third is a match report with nothing more than passing mentions (so not significant coverage). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He did play ODI against West Indies cricket team and also appeared in 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Global Qualifier B. By the looks of it, he might be selected for 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup in future. Also agree with Lugnuts above. Human (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the WP:NSPORTS2022 RFC, merely playing is no longer a criterion for having a standalone article; nor is predicting what he might do in future. Sources are needed to show that the subject meets WP:GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wjemather: I was expecting this response from you. Anyways a redirect should be a logical alternative as I am confident the player will get an article in future. Human (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the sorts of coverage that Lugnuts has found above, as well as the mention at the article linked from his CricInfo profile and so on, I think keeping is probably justified in this case. WP:BASIC provides for the sorts of coverage from those sorts of sources to be applied to articles about people - the coverage is clearly beyond simple trivial match reports in this case. I wonder if there are any other transliterations of his name by the way? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and Human. St Anselm (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's GNG coverage on this one as Lugnuts has found. There's a suitable redirect again anyway if needs be, but I think there's going to be enough here anyway. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Netherlands ODI cricketers. Fails NSPORT (including SPORTCRIT and NCRIC), and there seems to be entirely insufficient to pass WP:GNG and build a policy-compliant article, per WP:WHYN. We need to demonstrate coverage exists now, and only one of the sources found contains significant coverage from an independent source, but it is minimal; the other sources are either primary, not independent, or coverage is trivial, which per BASIC "do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. International cricketers really ought to be off limits for AfD's for full member nations and teams outside of those who play in the Cricket World Cup Super League. StickyWicket (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, notability guidelines that supported this view were rejected by the community and removed from NSPORT earlier this year. Better sources are required than those that have been presented so far. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough. DIVINE (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: lots of coverage now as he entrenches himself into the Dutch team.[23] St Anselm (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States ODI cricketers. I have to discount the "keep" opinions because they mostly do not address what community consensus has established every biography needs: substantial coverage in reliable sources. And those that do cite sources do not (or unconvincingly) address the concerns raised about these sources that they are not substantial coverage. I'm also discounting the input by Lugnuts because they have since been banned. Sandstein 19:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saiteja Mukkamalla[edit]

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

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and United States of America. –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has played at least one senior ODI, the highest form of one-day cricket, which satisfies WP:CRIC Bs1jac (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCRIC (WP:CRIC is the wikiproject) states that significant coverage is likely to exist for international cricketers in Test playing nations. That is not the case here, so WP:GNG must be met, and none of the current sources in the article contribute to demonstrating that. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of mentions in press reports. Once they start to call him things like "teenage prodigy" it makes me wonder if there might be enough here to suggest that keeping the article wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. There's evidence through those that he is also referred to Sai Mukkamalla, Sai Teja Mukkamalla and Sai Reddy Mukkamalla. We've had this issue with transliterations several times recently which is all a bit unfortunate. In particular, using Sai Teja adds a number of other mentions to those we already get. Hmmm... Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you could share 3-4 of the SIGCOV sources you've found, you'd have a good argument for keeping the article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep?. As BST said there should be enough SIGCOV if the player actually played ODI unlike T20Is as not ICC member gets to play them. However I've noticed this discrepancy between what's written in WP:NCRIC and WP:CRIN. Help in improving articles are expected instead of just blatantly deleting everything. Human (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect to List of United States ODI cricketers There's clearly coverage on this player, he gets absolute heaps of mentions in a simple google search, which would normally suggest that there is likely something out there that would pass him for GNG, however in this albeit simple search I've not really found anything other than these passing mentions (although absolutely loads of them). I'd like to think with these amounts of mentions there is enough for a GNG pass, hence me suggesting keep, although I wouldn't mind a redirect here per WP:ATD until a bit more turns up, which I believe it will. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BST. Here's one source for starters. Worst case then redirect to List of United States ODI cricketers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United States ODI cricketers. None of the sources found contain significant coverage, only passing mentions in routine sports reporting. This is entirely insufficient to pass WP:GNG and build a policy-compliant article, per WP:WHYN. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a little bit more than just passing mentions, but we'd need to build a more significant set of those to meet WP:BASIC. I doubt I'll be able to find time over the next week to do the sorts of work that would be necessary to do this, so there's nothing wrong with the non-destructive remedy of using a redirect for now. I suspect there's more to come on the chap, fwiw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that has been presented meets the requirements of GNG/BASIC/SPORTCRIT; specifically, primary sources "do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject", and (other than the usual databases) routine passing mentions in primary sports reporting is pretty much all that has been shown to exist. In these cases, lists serve our readers better than producing unbalanced stub articles synthesised from such sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per BST and Lugnuts. Another poorly thought out AfD on an international cricketer. StickyWicket (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per accurate reasoning by Keep voters. —Natalie RicciNatalie 09:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United States ODI cricketers. The keep arguments allude to sources but other than one borderline source above, nothing has been found. "There should be sources" is not and has never been an argument for notability and WP:NCRIC only says "Significant coverage is likely to exist" it does not say that playing at a certain level creates notability. NCRIC only says there may be sources at a certain level; it is neither a guarantee that sources will exist, nor does playing at any given level create even an assumption of notability. Sources are still required and notability must be demonstrated; we can't allude to hypothetical sources as a reason to keep an article, and per WP:GOOGLEHITS having "absolute heaps of mentions" on Google doesn't mean anything as it's the quality and significance of coverage that matters. - Aoidh (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BST, Lugnuts, and StickyWicket. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 16:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:PERX. BST said BASIC has not (yet) been met and did not give an argument for keeping the article, so what are you basing your keep argument on, exactly? - Aoidh (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BST said that "we'd need to build a more significant set of those [passing mentions] to meet WP:BASIC". As said before, there are an abundant amount of passing mentions in which they give a mention or some regard on this person. Some "significant" mentions I have found so far include this and this from Cricbuzz, this and this from Emerging Cricket, and this and this from Stabroek News and Bernews. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 18:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you say As I said before what are you referring to? Your first comment literally only said "Per BST, Lugnuts, and StickyWicket", none of whom make any argument for keeping the article in line with any Wikipedia policy or guideline. As for your sources, every single one of those is a trivial mention, and do not contribute to WP:BASIC in any way, and fall far short of WP:GNG. If those are the most "significant" sources that can be found, that's just evidence that there should not be an article of this subject on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said “as said before”, in reference to BST and Rugby. And Lugnuts and StickyWicket were just adding on to what BST had said. Lugnuts gave a decent secondary source (an example of a “significant” passing mention, as part of WP:BASIC) and StickyWicket just agreed with both BST and Lugnuts. And, in remarks to my “trivial” mentions, there are far more mentions lurking on the Internet and these sources were just some among others which provides more than just a regard in his performance in matches. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 23:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many trivial mentions there are out there, they don't contribute to notability and at that point you're just appealing to WP:GHITS. None of those sources describe the subject in any detail beyond passing mentions other than the one single one Lugnuts provided, and even that's not significant coverage. If you had a great number of those kinds of sources that would be an argument for WP:BASIC, but these trivial mentions don't cut it. I would say that this for example could not be more trivial, but this somehow manages. These are as trivial as it is possible to get while still somehow managing to have his name in the source. I think you would be hard pressed to find a source that says less about him while still including his name...and this is the best we can do for sources? This is what you linked as examples of why the article should be kept? All that does is highlight that even the people arguing to keep the article can't find coverage of the article's subject and can't justify it being on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think, as I said above, that there's better than the examples there. I might just get a chance to see what I can identify over the next 48 hours. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers. Tone 09:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gull Feroza[edit]

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

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 16:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. –dlthewave ☎ 16:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that her name also appears to be transliterated as Gul Feroza and there may be other alternatives as well. There are at least two in-depth TV style interviews with her on YouTube from different media sources (one 15 mins long). Neither are in English. Has anyone checked non-English sources at all? Given the number of mentions in English I think I'd want to do that before I could be confident that there aren't sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: I've had a look to see if there are any Urdu sources, there only seems to be one saying she got a central contract, and this which I assume is not enough. Suprising seeing as there were two interviews. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers While there seems to be a bit of confusion over the correct spelling of her name, I'm not sure there's going to be enough coverage currently for her. However, again, there is a suitable redirect per WP:ATD, and again could have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BST (...least two in-depth TV style interviews...). Also meets the updated WP:NSPORT notability guideline: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", so going down to the cricket notability states "Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation" and she has, having played for Pakistan. She's also in the squad for the Commonwealth Games that is happening right now too, suggesting coverage for her exists, albeit not in English. At worst, redirect per RugbyFan Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers - The sources just aren't there. Also to counterpoint what Lugnuts said above, he's leaving out a very important aspect of the cricket specific listing at WP:NSPORT. It does not say "cricket notability" or that notability is met if they play at an international level. What is says is: "Significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they...Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation." Additionally it says "cricketers who have played...in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." So with higher international players we can assume there's coverage, with lower international players we can't assume there's coverage. It says nothing about making one notable, it literally only is a guidance on the likelihood of coverage and is not a judgement on notability in any way. Whether this is a higher or lower level of international play I honestly do not know (I'm assuming it's higher) but the end result is the same, reliable sources still need to exist. Whether we should assume coverage or not, we still have to actually provide the coverage to meet WP:GNG, and this article's subject does not. - Aoidh (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity chess[edit]

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

There is a thing called "gravity chess", as explained in this article. However, the game described in this article (and in the images) is not that version, but some new version which doesn't have any reliable sources to support it. If an article for the "real" gravity chess should exist, then WP:TNT comes into play; better to start from scratch than to start from an article which from the very start was about the "wrong" version. Fram (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in my edit history, this article was modeled after other variant articles such as Balbo's game, Cross chess, Double chess, Masonic chess, Rhombic chess, Alice chess, Apocalypse (chess variant), Chad (chess variant), Congo (chess variant), Jeson Mor, Andernach chess, Beirut chess, Checkless chess, Cubic chess, Hostage chess, Losing chess, Legan chess... I could keep going. There seems to be nothing specifically or unusually bad about this article, except that it doesn't have a reference in Pritchard. Oeoi (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Delete unless someone can find a genuine reliable source relating to this variant of chess. When the only reliable source in an article refers to something different that has the same name, there is a big problem. Google searches come up with a third thing, different again, also called Gravity chess, a sort of balancing plastic board that tips: [24]. We need several secondary sources unconnected with the originator, and reliable, before we can write anything. Elemimele (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per nom. I saw this article yesterday, and wanted to draftify or nominate it to AfD. There's no more refs that can be found on Google, News, Books, and so on. Firstly, it does seem that the article has WP:OR, I suppose its history section, The idea of "falling pieces" in chess variants is often traced back to the development of online chess, where boards on a screen are often displayed "vertically". Early variants of gravity chess, such as Pippin Barr's version, developed in 2019, had gravity act in the direction of increasing files, and pawns did not serve as anchors. This variant, however, led to draws most of the time, tries to explain the new version with rules change, but with a single ref that's probably the worst SPS I ever saw (can't believe a website made in 2022 would be so bad) with no about us or policies whatsoever that also fails to explain the new version. Then there's this source, I suppose it's so poor, we don't even need to debate if it's an RS or SIGCOV. Considering that the game's very similar to the entry of the article at List of chess variants (though that's an older version, this is a newer one with rules change), we could redirect this, but I prefer deletion slightly. Considering the OR and poorness of the article, there isn't much to merge, I've already added the single ref counting to GNG in the list article. Therefore, I don't support a merge, and would agree for deletion per nom or redirecting. VickKiang (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. If the PC Gamer article isn't about the described game there is not even the barest glimmer of notability here. Not even notable enough for listing at List of chess variants. Many of the variants listed by Oeoi could do with serious consideration of deletion as well, there are far too many of these articles. --LukeSurl^t c 20:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge something (based on the PC Gamer, which is RS) to Chess variant (or the list). I was going to ping User:LukeSurl but they already noticed this. Luke - really, nothing to rescue here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to lose any sleep if List of chess variants keeps the Gravity chess line that was added recently. But that list is a bit of a dumping ground for variants with little or no evidence of substantial play and could do with cleanup. LukeSurl^t c 12:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
redirect look like enough sourcing for the redirect. Hobit (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MasterPeace Bangladesh[edit]

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

Classic WP:SELFPUB. Half of the sources are published by the very organisation that this article is about; what remains are obscure sites that have no reputation for accuracy and fact checking, not meeting WP:RS. Coverage falls short of requirements under notability guidelines. This article should be deleted. UserNumber (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 29. UserNumber (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NGO#2, which is to say that after a thorough search I cannot find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering doing a procedural close as the AFD nominator failed to tag the article or post a notice for the article creator, letting them know about this discussion. A bot did tag the article but this was not correctly done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my first instinct was look for merge/redirect potential, but after searching, I wasn't even able to establish notability for the parent organization via WP:NGO or WP:GNG, let alone this local chapter. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Malawi[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOT. Fram (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Africa. Fram (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and fails WP:LISTN. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails LISTN. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright. The worthiness of this whole category ("List of people on the postage stamps of [country]") should be probably evaluated. -The Gnome (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SM City Tanza[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NGEO. A PROD has been contested and a draft has been declined – both concerning notability – but sourcing is limited to a few one-sentence mentions, both in the article and in a WP:BEFORE search. ComplexRational (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Philippines. ComplexRational (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, passing mentions in sources, meets neither WP:NGEO or WP:GNG. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon for an upcoming mall. There is also a draft, which appears to have been submitted by another editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The prod was taken down by the article creator (which I still have a problem with, despite being left a snarky message after restoring.) This is too soon, and doesn't yet pass GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 12:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per WP:TOOSOON. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as the current status is "an upcoming mall" (meaning either under construction phase or on planning stage and not yet open to the public), definitely WP:TOOSOON. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De Panamá a New York (album)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NALBUMS. Ignoring the self-published sources here, the books and other sources I could find only briefly mentioned the subject, failing WP:SIGCOV. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find some sources, namely album reviews, and a mention of it being his first mainly self-composed songs on the NY magazine and they've been added to the article. Erick (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources added to the article by Magiciandude. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources support that WP:NALBUM is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nawaf Al-Jamea[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Little substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources Paul W (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Recent edits appear to be works by the subject, not coverage about him. Paul W (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a travel blogger, so this is likely to support that effort. I find no sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't seem to have much coverage even in Arabic media. He owns a travel company and has appeared in media giving some comments about travel and tourism, but no evidence of notability. Chagropango (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Owns a travel company but lacks coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kenza Farah#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 14:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trésor (album)[edit]

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

Found no significant coverage. Did chart in France and Wallonia but it is my understanding the rules are clear that charting alone =/= notability clearance, and that's all the album has going for it. QuietHere (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Algeria. QuietHere (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understood that charting albums help create notability for the artist; the album itself, perhaps? I don't see much for this album in French sources, track listings and brief PR pieces on clickbait sites. Probably redirect to the article about the artist. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kenza Farah#Discography; violates WP:NALBUM. AiGenly (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kenza Farah#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WalletConnect[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Some coverage in RSes, but it's all passing mentions - I couldn't find any in-depth coverage that would meet WP:NCORP. Current substantive ref is in TechCrunch, which is yellow-rated on WP:RSP as not really usable as indicative of notability. Other coverage is press releases or cryptocurrency sites. Previous versions of the article were overwhelmingly promotional in tone, and substantially written by a series of SPAs. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, per requirements of WP:NCORP - David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, and Technology. David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, more crypto fluff. Non-notable, passing mentions as explained. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 09:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quintetto Chigiano[edit]

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

fails wp:nband. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 12:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 12:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for additional refs and inline citations. The article on the Quintetto Chigiano was written as a "starter" stub several years ago, and needs more adequate verification sources listed inline: I agree. However it was certainly a notable classical ensemble, and if the page is removed it will in due course be necessary to replace it. As it stands, the reference listed under "Sources" as Sackville-West and Shawe-Taylor, together with the selection of Decca recordings listed with their reference data, ought to be sufficient to verify their notability for the purposes of a "stub", which this is. I suggest that, rather than deletion, it would be more useful and appropriate to tag the page with a request for (a) additional references and (b) more specific inline citation, and allow a further amount of additional time for these to be found and added.Eebahgum (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have enlarged the data and improved the references. Eebahgum (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added two refs to their recordings, from notable publishers. Reading this, I understand that Ginastera dedicated a work to them. Notable, no doubt. Just improve the article. I have no time right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
adding: lettherebedarklight, I consider this nomination an unfunny joke. This isn't a band but a Classical music ensemble, - please inform that project. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: wp:nband states Musicians or ensembles (emphasis mine).

i shall notify the wikiproject promptly. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 15:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – dozens of mentions just in the British press, including:

"a very notable chamber consort from Italy … [playing] with unanimity, extreme subtlety, and easy mastery that made their playing a delight to the ear" – The Times, 22 January 1949
"a team ranked among the finest players in Europe" – The Times, 24 October 1951
"The Italian Quintetto Chigiano has achieved a remarkable reputation in London for homogeneity, interpretation and technical ability" – Liverpool Echo, 24 October 1951
"one of the most notable ensembles in the history of chamber music" – Belfast Telegraph, 7 September 1959
"the incomparable Quintetto Chigiano in Dvořák's Piano Quintet, a performance so glorious that one feels one has never heard the work before" – Birmingham Daily Post, 13 December 1951

Notable beyond question. Tim riley talk 17:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The other editors in this discussion have shown that the subject is notable. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this isn't going to go anywhere else, so nomination withdrawn! lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 00:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arminden, please take a look at WP:BLUDGEON. Sandstein 14:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mawsim (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This page is not required. In Enwiki there is only one article titled, or might otherwise be titled, Mawsim, and that article has a hatnote to wikt. No other entry on the page is a valid entry per MOS:DAB. PROD removed by @Arminden:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it serves the user. That should be enough. One page covering the whole range of meanings and variants, which Mawsim does not. Moussem (Arabic) is a variant and has one more article. Similarly Mevsim (Turkish), which has several related articles. Neither Wiktionary (of which there are two linked pages, not just one!), nor Mawsim covers the range of topics bundled together here. Also, given the range and importance of the Arabic/Muslim term mawsim/moussem, there are certainly more articles to come: google for these terms and see for yourselves. Just one example: "Moussem Moulay Abdellah Amghar", the moussem from the commune of Moulay Abdellah, has been proposed for the UNESCO Cultural Heritage list etc. Arminden (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy and guidelines require disambiguation pages to adhere to standards—this does not—or articles about a topic, which this is perhaps attempting to be, to be properly-sourced to ensure WP:Verifiability—this is not. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is there any reason why our readers would go searching for Mawsim when they are interested in Tan-Tan Moussem, or in Turkish films whose titles contain the Turkish word Mevsim? I know all three words are related and mean "Season", but to an English reader, they are spelled quite differently, and I doubt any English-speaking reader would type Mawsim when they're thinking Mevsim, or would have read a lot about Turkish films in Arabic-language sites. If no one is likely to go looking for these other pages using the word Mawsim, then the DAB isn't helping anyone. But I don't feel strongly about deleting DABs. Elemimele (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Wrong way round. I landed here looking for the meaning of mawsim, and by reading & editing it, I learned what it means etymologically, what it means culturally, especially in the French-influenced Maghreb, how it took a different shade when adopted by the Turks, and in the end understood a whole linguistic and cultural phenomenon. All I had known before was "fantasia", which sounded like a word made up by Europeans. That's why I used to love perusing through old encyclopaedias as a kid, and still do like getting as much of the picture as possible. One can indeed come searching for connections or know about N aspects and search for a specific additional one, but more often than not, any kind of well-written piece opens up a wider horizon than expected. The difference between an encyclopaedia and a technical tutorial. Arminden (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the entries other than the primary topic are WP:partial title matches, hence there is nothing to disambiguate. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: The conflict is between bureaucracy (rule ACX/97 §15b) vs the benefit of the user who gets the bigger picture - and there is no downside to it whatsoever. Now you tell me. Who knew before reaching this page about the connection between mawsim, moussem, mevsim, what they mean ("season" mutating to "jubilee"), and what connects them (Muslim, Arabic-based culture, which took different forms in different regions, under different influences - Bedouin/Berber, French, Turkish) before coming here? I didn't, until I did a research, which is now done and here to learn the results of. Bureaucracy is a disease that kills the spirit. Arminden (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone not click the Wiktionary page from the hatnote? I agree that 'bureaucracy is a disease that kills the spirit," but I don't think that that is what is going on here. -Bejnar (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are THREE Wiktionary pages linked. I have put in 2 of the 3. The Arabic Wikt. entry is the key one and it wasn't mentioned. It's not about reading Arabic, the Wikt. entry is all in English. All information is for the English-speaking, curious user. It was also me who put in the variant "moussem" into the lead of which there was no mention, and the Turkish "mevsim". Only now one knows to connect the three, not before, and not by only looking up mawsim. That is part of the gain one has by using such a page after it evolved to the stage it's at now: one sees connections, context, lexical and semantic evolution. Not a technical spreadsheet or oversized one-way redirect, but a crossroads to related information. Arminden (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If one is looking for Turkish films, they probably should start with Lists of Turkish films and not at Mawsim. If they want to find all Wikipedia articles that mention 'mawsim' they should run that search. If there are films that primarily deal with mawsim, then an appropriate sub-section in that article could be written to cover them. Partial title matches are really only useful to the searcher where they are also known by the shorter nickname of the entry word. --Bejnar (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: You obviously didn't read anything I wrote. Your arguments don't address even a single one of mine. This page informs about a wider context, isn't strictly about finding a link to what one already knows. Wasting my breath. Arminden (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden: Wider context is usually provided in summary in the lead of an article, and in more detail in a section on etymology or history, or in a 'cultural aspects' section. That is not the function of a disambiguation page. --Bejnar (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bejnar, thank you for entering the argument. I've been here so many times. Theory vs reality. Do you see anywhere an enWiki article on the Arabic word for "season" and its wide & important ramifications in the Muslim world? Are you planning to write one? I guess not. Now it's here (in a minimal form), we have it, it doesn't cost anyone anything - why remove it? The only possible honest answer is: by principle, because the rules say so - which I read as: bureaucracy. Winning over intellectual benefit. See now what I mean? And because honest arguments do work like brainstorming: I'll look into the article on "season", maybe this material can be salvaged there. I'm not stubborn or irrational, I just want to combat enthropy the best I can.

I did check. It only has a natural science approach, it doesn't fit at all, unless one adds a whole new dimension to it (history, culture). A bit too ambitious for me now. This here we have already. Does anyone volunteer to start an aricle on "Mawsim (season)" ? Start with what's here, add a bit more, and we can have a useful new stub. A constructive solution. Arminden (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden: You are correct, this is not the proper place for content. Articles are the proper place for content. Your research gave you context and allowed you to extract meaning from this page, others will not have that benefit when they arrive here, nor should they expect to find content here. It is not bureaucratic, it is a sensible way to organize information. In general, the map should not be confused with the territory, navigation aids should not be confused with the target. --Bejnar (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: Wait, not so fast! Whatever I found I put on the DAB page! The 2 very relevant additional Wikt entries, the original meaning of the word (season), the additional unchallenged example (Tan-Tan Moussem), I put some order into the lot (there was 1 Turkish movie dumped it), fixed smaller mistakes (mevsim, not mevsimi the basic form; lower-case as common nouns).

To remind you: this is how it looked like when I started editing it. Also, had I stayed away, nobody would have brought up the deletion of -- a much worse DAB. But those who want it deleted don't accept the facts, I keep on pointing them out, the same ones, and they keep on ignoring them in their counterfactual arguments. That's really not very productive. Compare the 3 January 2021 page with now: I AM SHARING my findings with the user! That's my/the whole point. Any user arriving here has it already available, and it's nowhere else -- put it in an article, and I'l transform the DAB into a redirect myself. Insisting to remove material which is useful, but not available anywhere else on enWiki for formal reasons: precisely that I call bureaucracy. And check DABs: lots of them offer the level of information found here. Again, reality vs abstract formal "rules". It goes against the spirit of Wiki, and by definition: the spirit has to have the upper hand. Even as per "the rules" :)

PS: The truth is in the pudding. I arrived on the page while editing Nebi Musa, looking for the wider meaning of mawsim: no answer back then, and very much so now. I would have been a very happy user to find what's on the page now. QED. And you want to take that away, for no gain whatsoever. Arminden (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the content belongs in Wikipedia, by no means certain (see WP:RS and WP:N), put it where it belongs, not hidden in a DAB page. --Bejnar (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: You can drive even a calmer person than me crazy, you know that? I'VE ANSWERED TO EVERY PART OF THAT ALREADY.

"If the content belongs in Wikipedia, by no means certain" - "seasons in Islamic world" not encyclopedic, in your opinion?
"see rule 1, rule 2" - AGAIN: not interested. This is so evidently useful encyclopedic material, we'd just end up interpreting bureaucratic rules AND contradicting the spirit of Wiki, its rule No. 1.
"Put it where it belongs" - it belongs nowhere else, READ ABOVE! There is no other article on "seasons in Islamic world", and Season has nothing other than natural science, zero on cultural perception. That's why I have invited you & anyone who wishes to write such articles, for which I lack the time.
"Not hidden in a DAB page" - not hidden at all, search for the term and it shows up. Reality check, as I said ALREADY.

I'll try to stay out of this now. I've copied the info on my hard drive, do as you like, let everyone else go buy a Britannica if they want to learn things. Arminden (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 other discussion about primary topics or hat notes should take place elsewhere -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kate McCann (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The DAB page includes only a primary topic and one other item. I can't find any other appropriate entries or even partial-title matches. A hatnote at Kate McCann would suffice. Leschnei (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: when I created the article, I used the title Kate McCann (journalist), and had Kate McCann as a redirect to this page. The journalist page was then moved by MB to become the primary topic. I would disagree with this move - I think that the name Kate McCann, to most people in the UK, would be more familiar as the mother of Madeleine McCann than of this journalist. QueenofBithynia (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree most people in the UK will associate the name Kate McCann with the Kate McCann whose daughter disappeared in 2007. Perhaps a solution here is to put a hatnote on the page directing to the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann article. This is Paul (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is what I had done on the article, until it was removed by MB when moving the article. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed, Delete and replace with hatnotes. Elemimele (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. No need for a dab page with a PT and only one other ambiguous topic. Usually, if only one topic has an article, it is the primary topic. It that is not the case here, then the base name should be a redirect to the PT, and there should be a ((redirect)) hatnote there mentioning the other title. Note that deleting the dab does not resolved which is the primry topic. If there is consensus here on that point, they can be boldly swapped, otherwise a move discussion. MB 16:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MB. If there were several notable people with that name, it'd be one thing, but there isn't. Best just to place the missing daughter on the top of the journalist's article. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've changed the hatnote. PamD 07:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But is the journalist actually the primary topic? Or would we be better off with a dab page pointing to the two Kates? Perhaps we should revert the undiscussed move? PamD 07:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally support this. Madeleine McCann's mother is definitely the primary topic for this name. QueenofBithynia (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support this. The journalist was relatively unknown until she collapsed on TV earlier this week, where as the other Kate McCann is the far more notable of the two because of her daughter's disappearance and the long standing campaign to find her. This is Paul (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection. This seems like a reasonable way forward. Leschnei (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Recession[edit]

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

This article is falsely predicated. A recession in United States begins only when the National Bureau of Economic Research says it has. The NBER has not said this. soibangla (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source on this statement? Couldn’t find anything in the United States Code or Merriam Webster saying that NBER alone declares recessions. - JoeBo82 — Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeBo82, I already responded to this exact question before you asked it again. The Guardian source in the article clearly states the NBER is the official body to decide, stating, "...the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is the official arbiter of when recessions begin and end." RS available here. --Kbabej (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much in the article on recession anyway, [25], so there is that. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the article seems to be about the topic 2022 recession in the United States. With NOTNEWS in mind, there is encyclopedic content on the economic in the U.S. and academic debate over whether it is in a recession, but that is better situated at existing pages until/unless it is a consensus among economists, or declared by the NBER, or such. — Bilorv (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see from The Signpost that I've unintentionally wandered into some far-right internet nonsense. I'll upgrade to a speedy delete or speedy draftify: just get this thing the hell out of mainspace. We shouldn't be broadcasting deliberate misinformation. (And for the record, I have no respect for Biden and the U.S. is in a catastrophic economic situation.) — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as placer of original prod notice. None of the sources provided claim that there is in fact a recession, and I could not find any that stated so. ... discospinster _talk 15:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2021–2022 inflation surge per my comment on the talk page. Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 16:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC) Delete per below. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 20:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be redirected. A recession has not been declared and Wikipedia should not provide any suggestion it has been. Let's not get ahead of our skis. soibangla (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that a recession had been declared. I've updated my comment. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 20:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE The United States is in a Recession. If this article is deleted, it will only serve as yet another example of the strong maxis bias of WikiPedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsmith11 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mjsmith11, please provide a reliable source that reports the US is in a recession. soibangla (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

soibangla (talk), why don’t you provide a source that two quarters decline is not one of the definitions for a recession. - JoeBo82 — Preceding undated comment added 01:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JoeBo82 That's not how it works. The burden is on the one making the claim / creating the article to provide reliable sources backing it up, in this case that there is in fact a recession in the United States (not the threat of one, or an unofficial one). Otherwise it's original research which does not belong in an encyclopedia. ... discospinster _talk 16:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Soibangla, 1. Two fiscal quarters of economic decline is a recession. The United States of America currently experiencing two quarters of economic decline. Therefore, The United States of America is in a recession now. The 2022 recession is here. You harassing me and demanding proof only demonstrates you are actively engaged in hiding the obvious truth. -Mike (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maxis? They make SimCity, how is that a recession source to be used here? Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a thing that has been declared to exist yet, and too awkward a search term to function as a good redirect. XOR'easter (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Draftify This is simply too soon. There is a reasonable chance this topic should exist in the future but it's too soon right now. Wait another quarter then revisit the topic. Springee (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete/Objection to deletion. It does not matter whether NBER declared a recession. The consecutive declines in GDP meets one of historic definitions for a recession. Soibangla and NBER do not have a monopoly on what defines a recession. - JoeBo82 — Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the NBER is the exclusive arbiter of recession dating. Moreover, there are no reliable sources saying we are now in recession after yesterday's report. soibangla (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive arbiter, yet there are recessions in countries other than the United States. Hmmm? -JoeBo82

This article specifically states "caused the beginning of a recession in the United States," not other countries. And it's false. soibangla (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False. According to who? If you have a source proving that NBER has a monopoly what constitutes a recession, I’d love to read it. Til then, I’d say that Wikipedia should keep this stub up. -JoeBo82 — Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google "NBER official arbiter." soibangla (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeBo82, @Soibangla is correct. The Guardian source in the article clearly states the NBER is the official body to decide, stating, "...the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is the official arbiter of when recessions begin and end." RS available here. --Kbabej (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Out of the four sources on the page, three do not mention a 2022 recession. The only reference to do so is the Guardian article which states an "unofficial start of recession"... clearly implying there is not an official recession. Otherwise this seems like OR/SYNTH. Heave ho, IMO. --Kbabej (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic there was no U.S. war in Vietnam, only an ‘intervention’. -JoeBo82 — Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeBo82 we go with what RS say. None of the sources in the article say there is an actual recession happening. Three don't even mention a 2022 recession, and the Guardian says it's unofficial. WP should not have an agenda in pushing an event that very clearly has not started - if it ever does. --Kbabej (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Don't we already have an article on the "2022 United States recession"? GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. - JoeBo82 — Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I knew we were in a recession early this year (I'm in a recession leading industry), but that doesn't matter since it hasn't been declared officially in the sources. This is jumping the gun, maybe to get that "article created" blip, I don't know. Regardless, it is too soon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: if you do a news search, it is obvious that the question of a recession in 2022 is a notable topic. Similarly, it is obvious that if it were determined that one were happening, this would be a notable topic as well. So one of two things will happen: it will, or it won't. Until we know what the hell is going on, it is kind of pointless to have an article navel-gazing about the possibility. Note that, for example, List of earthquakes in 2023 is a redlink, despite the blatant fact that there will be some earthquakes in 2023 -- there isn't much we can say about them because they aren't planned in advance. I move to draftify and not to delete because, if it is later determined that current economic conditions do indeed constitute a recession, writing an article about it is going to involve mentioning stuff that is currently going on; there is no need to erase the content. jp×g 03:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. Also…it seems like the topic may be notable from the lens of wider disagreement in media over whether the US is currently experiencing a recession. The current content of this article attempts to argue that there is a recession, which is OR and not an encyclopedic method of covering the discourse in reliable sources about this topic. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 04:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Very likely that 2022 will be a global recession if inflation is going to be controlled (otherwise, the next decade will be brutal). However, we are not there yet, and have no official confirmation in any major economy. So, per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia should not be trying to lead/anticapte it. 78.19.229.252 (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - although there doesn't seem to be much work that could not be recreated, there is some edit history and sources which have been in the article in the past which could be used to continue the article when an official recession is declared. Calwatch (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I propose the article be kept, but also renamed. The question of whether the US is currently in a recession is not 100% resolved, though the most popular indicator of GDP says it is. It could be renamed to 2022 Recession question or 2022 economic downturn. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this article should remain. Most economists agree that the definition of a recession is when we have two negative quarters of growth in GDP. As this is the definition used in 2020, 2008, etc., this article should remain to not appear hypocritical. 207.255.130.213 (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The US is in a recession after 2 quarters of shrinking GDP. Nerguy (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney Stop the Leftist Propaganda.

Quit changing definitions.

Leave the article up. 75.133.168.86 (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what leftist propaganda? This is a global platform. That generally doesn't exist elsewhere. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources have come out to declare an official US recession, yet. Likely too soon, could perhaps draftify to see if it happens. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution Truth[edit]

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

The page has had notability issues since 2011, and has no citations except for releasing a teaser video in 2011. Softlemonades (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing I could find was a passing mention in Rolling Stone from 2014: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/the-wikileaks-mole-102787/ Just trivial coverage. Chagropango (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N due to a lack of sustained coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Saroye[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO / WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG - no significant coverage at all in the sources. All acting roles minor or uncredited parts KylieTastic (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. KylieTastic (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 12:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taichi Adachi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGYMNASTICS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Sources are not good enough with one link to Facebook. Not been able to find any secondary or reliable sources. Fats40boy11 (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taichi Adachi won the all-around title at the 2020 Liukin Invitational Elite, which applies to WP:NGYMNAST criteria: Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition. Also, JGA, Gymternet & FIG are all independent of Taichi Adachi himself, so sources there are independent sources. For secondary, take the example of the FIG link, as in a Secondary source, information is selected, modified and arranged in a suitable format, and the FIG must have collected information from his documents in Japanese, such as birth certificate, high school profile...NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NguyenDuyAnh1995 In the article, it states that Adachi is ‘currently considered one of the most promising competitors in Japan’, but the source that follows that goes to a Facebook page. Is there a more reliable source to support this claim? I haven’t been able to find any to back this claim myself, but do you have any (even if they are not in English) other sources that can back this claim as someone who is more familiar with Adachi.

In regards to the WP:NGYMNAST, I’m not entirely swayed by the Liukin Invitational Elite as an ‘elite’ competition (I don’t necessarily agree with what defines ‘elite’, but it is what it is). Although this is a problem, I think there is also a problem with the sourcing. Personally, I don’t think he is notable for his own article. As a former gymnast myself in my youth, I would love as many gymnastic articles as possible. However, we can’t go creating articles for every gymnast who we cannot confirm are notable. Fats40boy11 (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fats40boy11 Adachi ranked 7th at the All-Japan championships, which makes him one of the most promising. If you don’t think it should be in the article or need sources to back the claim, you are free to edit or add your opinion on the article’s talk page, not in deletion discussion. Also, Liukin Invitational Elite meets WP:NGYMNASTICS’s criteria to be an elite competition with at least 8 notable gymnasts: Junpei Oka, Kazuyuki Takeda, Seiya Taura, Asher Hong, William Emard, Javier Sandoval, Yevgen Yudenkov, Ryosuke Doi... NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response NguyenDuyAnh1995. However, I think it is reasonable to bring up issues with sourcing here as we may be able to improve the article rather than delete it, and this would be visible to other users who are at the AFD. It isn’t just the problem with the Facebook source, which was the one that I pointed out earlier, but the other sources as well. It feels a bit like some are mirrors of the source, which I’m sure you disagree with, but this is what I feel like when looking at it. Of course, the main issue of concern is whether Liukin Invitational Elite passes WP:NGYMNASTICS and this is what most people are more than likely going to look at in this AFD. Fats40boy11 (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NguyenDuyAnh1995, it is completely reasonable to mention existing sources in an AFD discussion. At some point, this discussion needs to be closed and countering opinions that there are no sources establishing notability by mentioning specific sources that do this can have an important impact on the closer's decision on whether or not an article has promise and should be kept or whether it should be deleted. The AFD closer isn't reviewing the article talk page to see if these discussions have been happening there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The keep !voter above was blocked for socking in AfDs. Anyway, no sources meeting GNG have been identified; the sockmaster's insistence that stats databases from governing sports organizations are SIGCOV and independent is utterly meritless on both counts; the article talk page is not where deletion discussions should be held; and absent at least one source of SIGCOV cited in the article, this topic fails SPORTCRIT and therefore cannot presume existence of coverage through NGYMNAST. JoelleJay (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGYMNASTICS. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NITTE International School[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Sources are either not independent, or don't mention the school at all (e.g. this one or this one, which is about the Nitte University, not this school. Found no other indication that this is a notable school. Fram (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Fram (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence to support notability. VV 08:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Kpddg ^(talk) 13:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Peter Breen (Australian politician). There was a split in the redirect targets, but Peter Breen (Australian politician) was the most suggested. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renewable Energy Party[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Could not find indepth coverage except the first hit in gnews. A minor party that existed for 2 years and never gained a seat. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing screams non-notable for a party involved in democratic politics than the words regarding its candidates for office,'none of whom were elected'. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a large number of defunct parties in the navigation template at the bottom of the page. It got more votes than about ten other groups in each state in the election it contested - see Results of the 2016 Australian federal election (Senate). Registered parties are part of the history of Australian politics and there is nowhere sensible for the (non-template) links to go instead. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Results of the 2016 Australian federal election (Senate), I was only able to find one reliable, secondary source that gave this extremely minor party significant coverage, here. I couldn't find anything else, meaning this party fails WP:GNG. Changing my vote to Keep per the sources found by Find bruce below. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Results of the 2016 Australian federal election (Senate) is a sensible option, as it stands the topic is not notable and fails WP:NORG. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the source mentioned by Devonian Wombat, there is also crikey.com.au about the party & people involved, Northern Star & each of the sources meet each of the criteria in WP:ORGCRIT. --Find bruce (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an organization therefore WP:NORG criteria applies. That includes the requirement for "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. The Crikey reference has no "Independent Content" as the information is entirely provided by members of the org and whatever is left over fails ORGDEPTH. Similarly, the Daily Telegraph report on their inaugural meeting also relies entirely on information provided by the party and members, fails NORG for the same reasons. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peter Breen (Australian politician), party founder, not an implausible search term. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Query Are the people proposing "Redirect" intending to Merge to their chosen target or to throw away the current content? There's little point in trying to expand the article from the growing reference list here (add ABC News in WA) if the effort is deleted anyway. AFD only requires that the sources exist, not that they are used. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect doesn't throw away content, the content is fully available in the history. FWIW that ABC News piece is almost exclusively interview text. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peter Breen (Australian politician). Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NORG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Cites no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 18:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Sources presented overly reliant on comments from people associated with the party, not meeting ORGIND in this case. Party founder is suitable redirect destination and content is not overly problematic. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator indefblocked, not much of a discussion. Sandstein 18:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayur Bora[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO. Page created by a confirmed sock user. Moreover, the profile photo and signature in the infobox indicates a UPE. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Literature. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, He is a well known assamese writer and has received many awards including the Sahitya Sabha Award. দিব্য দত্ত (talk) 06:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

দিব্য দত্ত Is that award notable? Read WP:NAUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO first please, before you claim anything. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : It is clear from his Assamese wikipedia article that he is notable enough. He has written 18 thought-provoking books (well citated by the article creator) and those books are widely read and seriously discussed by many in different newspapers and magazines. He is notable according to Wikipedia's biographical policy, too (see WP:NAUTHOR), even though NE individuals are not often acknowledged by mainstream media. Bhaskarjyoti Bhuyan (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaskarjyoti Bhuyan Writing Books don't clear WP:NAUTHOR as there are no book reviews. Book reviews could help the page to survive. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 03:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: SPI requested for both users দিব্য দত্ত and Bhaskarjyoti Bhuyan as their sole purpose is concentrated and active on this AfD nomination. )retracted) i.e. 1] we don't use signatures unless the subject is a highly notable person and 2] the profile photo of the subject person is too close to COI as per WP:COMMONSENSE - subject person's profile photo is clear identification of self-click or ready for click.
Even if a star person if is my most likes, I must be rationable, neutral and avoid WP:POV as per rules. But their edit history clearly confirms a FAN:POV and Meatpuppetry. Wiki should not entertain such FAN:POV. Regards _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 10:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fan Controlled Football. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 12:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FCF Glacier Boyz[edit]

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

There's not enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG (the standard requested of WP:NTEAM). None of the coverage I have seen has been much more than WP:ROUTINE (generally focusing on the FCF league itself instead of the team) or outside of Bleacher Report (which is not considered a WP:RS). I don't see how this team warrants a separate article as a result. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and American football. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fan Controlled Football: Suitable alternative to deletion. Bleacher Report is no longer largely user generated content and cannot be blanket considered an unreliable source. Regardless, there is not enough suitable coverage to warrant a standalone article and what is here can easily be moved to the main FCF page. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems to be the right choice here, I'm not finding coverage to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:ROUTINE applies to events, this is an organizaiton. But subject fails WP:GROUP. As a point of reference, WP:NTEAM refers to WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment WP:ROUTINE applies to events, this is an organizaiton. yikes, rookie mistake there on my part. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  No worries, I've done it myself. It's still a complete delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Cbl62 (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Sportsfangnome (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Garza[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Luis Garza is a Catholic priest who served as a mid-ranking official in the Legion of Christ back in the early 2000s. He does not meet the WP:notability standards, the only non-primary source about him is an article detailing two former Legion of Christ priests’ opinions on him. All other articles sourced are either just giving him a brief name-drop or are from the Legion of Christ itself. A google search shows no secondary sources about Fr. Garza, and there is nothing inherently notable about him. He was accused of sexual assault, but later cleared of the accusations, and he served as an official in the Church. The articles about leak of offshore holdings only talk about his family’s business and the LC, with him again only being briefly mentioned. The article seems like unnecessary information about a non-notable individual TheAmericanWarlord (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2022 (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/2022 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment:I noticed a previous AfD failed because he was Vicar General. This does not make him inherently notable, especially considering no other LC vicars have their own articles, and the overall leader of the Legion, John Connor, doesn’t either.TheAmericanWarlord (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is sort of the reverse "Other Stuff Exists" argument: "Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this." Unlike at least some other LC General Vicars, Garza has been extensively written about.Jahaza (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Religion, Christianity, and Mexico. jp×g 03:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to the nominator's assertion, Vargas was not a "mid-ranking official in the Legion of Christ," rather, he was the "second-in-command at the Legion"[26] as of 2006. This is, in fact, indicated by his title, since a "vicar general" is one who stands in place of another (vicar) with the power to act in most circumstances (general). The nominator states that "a google search shows no secondary sources about Fr. Garza", but even at the time of the previous AFD for this article, a commentator noted that a Google book search revealed secondary coverage mentions. That is still the case, with books by journalists Jason Berry [27], John Thavis[28], Gianluigi Nuzzi, and Frederic Martel [29] all mentioning Vargas and even directly noting his importance, Nuzzi calls him, "a figure of great importance in the life and history of the Legion"[30]. There's been extensive newspaper coverage of Garza in major newspapers like La Stampa [31], which called him "Up until a few months ago ... the Legion's most powerful figure".Jahaza (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This may be a case where infamy constitutes notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in the article cover the subject in some detail: (e.g. this one). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slab (geometry)[edit]

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

This may be on the level (heh) but I can't find any examples of this use of "slab". I can't access the single given source, and have the suspicion that this is a term coined by this author, rather than something in general use. But it's entirely possible that the problem is being masking by the overwhelming amount of uses of the term in geology.

If sources can be found, I guess this would still be better off merged or redirected to plane (geometry) than as a standalone. In absence of sources, suggest deletion. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Slab geometry" is a widely used concept in physics and engineering. Adopting a slab geometry allows for turning turning a 3D problem into a 1D problem. Gscholar yields 25,000 results for '"slab geometry" simulation' and 23,000 results for '"slab geometry" transport'. The concept is used in mathematics, too, e.g., [32] and [33]. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 09:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with all these hits is that what I can sample refers to physical uses of the term (which obviously are common in physics, engineering, and most of all geology). For this specific definition we need the purely mathematical one. I think one of yours [34] might do that, if I am parsing that correctly (the other [35] appears to be particle physics). Something a little more straightforward and less knurled would be even better. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have different points of view. I consider applied mathematics, such as applied geometry, to be mathematics, so that many of the top hits are relevant. I agree with XOR'easter that the isolated concept of a slab is simple. Like the topic of periodic boundary conditions, the richness comes not in the definition, but in its application. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 03:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The source does seem to use this phrase (with a formal definition) several times as a tool (the book is a book of convex analysis; an intersection of slabs is convex; in several cases the books uses this to study a particular convex set). However, there is no content in the source about slabs beyond a definition. I can find a small number of other compatible uses, e.g., [36] and [37] and [38], so this may be a standard if not extremely common definition. I'm rather skeptical that one can spin an encyclopedic article about slabs out of these kinds of references, in which everything encyclopedic belongs to some other article (e.g., my third link could be a reference in Tarski's plank problem ("plank" in place of "slab" here), and any encyclopedic content the reference currently in slab (geometry) would go in some article about convex analysis). --JBL (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be hard to write an encyclopedia article on this topic, rather than a dictionary definition. XOR'easter (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Essentially this definition (but not specific to three dimensions) is standard in computational geometry; see e.g. [39] [40] [41] all using it (and not necessarily explaining it because it is standard). There's not much to say about it but then that's not really different from other geometric concepts like points and lines. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with the analogy: there's lots to say about lines as elementary and axiomatic geometry (their different representations and equations, the notion of parallelism in different geometries, ...) and points (philosophical questions about what is a point) beyond the definition -- is there really anything analogous for slabs? --JBL (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably more similar to the linked Half-plane and Spherical shell. Equations could certainly be listed as well. With Constructive solid geometry intersecting three slabs can construct a box. Bounding volume and Convex polytope also talk about slabs. Cgbuff (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could certainly talk about algorithmic problems as well. In particular the minimum-width slab enclosing a set of points is the width of the set, and the minimum vertical distance instead of minimum distance between the planes gives a standard example of a low-dimensional linear program. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The linked source is accessible online / for download from the linked reference. I doubt it's coined by this author, it was just the clearest pure mathematical source I managed to find so far. Cgbuff (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I can actually access the source from this location. Doesn't work as a definition though - he just goes ahead and uses the term. Shouldn't this kind of thing be available out in an undergrad primer or suchlike? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The glossary of [42] informally defines slab. The term is also used in the slab method for point location. Cgbuff (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think that's starting to look pretty good now... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a lot of discussion on the concept of slab in geometry and less definitive statements on whether or not you think this article should be kept, deleted, merged or redirected. I've learned a bit about geometry here but can't decipher what this means in terms of what you think should happen to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think that with current content and sourcing we can keep. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm still not entirely convinced that this concept is best addressed with a stand-alone page, but I am persuaded that keeping the page around would be harmless. XOR'easter (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Participants agree that the sources described in the discussion are sufficient to meet WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Smith (journalist)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, limited notability. Author has written a few books and columns/articles but not a lot of sources independent of him. Andrevan@ 03:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Politics, and United States of America. jp×g 04:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this full-length article is entirely about Smith. This journal article also discusses his activism and ideas. Given the longevity of his career and his prominence in the world of alternative journalism, it seems evident that there are other articles about him as well.--User:Namiba 13:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if sources provided by Namiba are considered as reliable independent sources, my comment is Keep, otherwise because of lack of significant coverage my comment will be Delete. —Natalie RicciNatalie 09:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is. The 2nd one I'm not sure. Andrevan@ 06:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd source is a peer-reviewed academic journal, so I would say it qualifies as a reliable independent source. Sal2100 (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just wasn't sure if it was a trivial mention or actually covers him in some depth per WP:SIGCOV. Andre🚐 18:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While WP:RS-based significant coverage of the subject dosen't appear to be voluminous, the sources cited by Nambia plus this finding on Google Books make a credible case for borderline notability per WP:BASIC. Sal2100 (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mecha![edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG. Another game maybe of the same name (but without the ! appears here), otherwise, searching on Google, Books, News, Scholar, and BGG finds no refs (on BGG, there's only 13 ratings). The concern on if it meets GNG is based on a discussion with Piotrus here. But there might be other editors who have some older magazines mentioning this game. Maybe BOZ and Guinness323, frequently involved in BTG articles, AfDs, and discussions, have access to older magazines (if so, many thanks!). VickKiang (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted, I was also unable to find refs to show WP:GNG. In other words, it seems like a very minor, non-notable game. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete. BGG's limited coverage makes me think it is very unlikely this meets WP:N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 02:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orion Mills[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These sources show he is notable in the US Virgin Islands and USA: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. In addition, he is a young, already internationally capped player with an ongoing career, and is mentioned in countless match reports and videos. I feel like the nominator specifically tries to delete only football articles en masse for no reason. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Sources above not enough in my views. If further sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. WRA and VIMSIA aren't independent of Mills. The other sources just mention him. Dougal18 (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Hack (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WRA source: obviously not independent N. VIMSIA source: blog and not independent N. Akron Beacon Journal: 1/2 of one sentence in a 2-sentence PR announcement of a youth award N. St Thomas Source 1: name appears in a list in a press release N. Virgin Islands Daily News: name appears in a list in a press release N. St Thomas Source 2: name appears in a list in a press release N. Das osmnezz, please stop linking to sources that clearly auto-fail GNG as it wastes everyone's time having to assess them. JoelleJay (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing evidence for notability from independent secondary sources--Littehammy (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - passing mentions and routine blog coverage do not amount to a passing of GNG. Also fails WP:SPORTBASIC as well. Comments about the number of footballers being sent to AfD is irrelevant and not a valid argument for keeping an article on this footballer. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 05:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Tammen[edit]

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

There is no notabilty for wikipedia --ZemanZorg (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - besides what's already in the article, this recent article appears to strengthen the case for continuing significant coverage. Chicago Classical Review has been around for over 12 years, and the credentials of its writers and editors bolster the case that it's a reliable source when writing about a conductor. Wes sideman (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nominator raises plausible concerns about WP:SYNTH, but most of the participants believe that the sources do analyze the deaths as a collective whole. There are also concerns about quality, but not enough for a consensus to WP:TNT this article / return it to draftspace. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Russian mystery deaths[edit]

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

The article name is meaningless and generic, there is effectively no sourcing to tie any of these together, and has basically no content besides a table of red-linked names. Jon698 (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RIP the article was moved to draftspace right as I nominated it for deletion. 2022 Russian mystery fires should also be looked at. Jon698 (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I coincidentally draftified just as this AfD was created and I've reversed myself now. This was a really poor AfC accept in my opinion, with zero prose content actually discussing what reliable sources say about these so-called mystery deaths. If kept, this should be sent back to the draftspace gulag for more improvement (unless someone HEYMANNs it during this AfD). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep News items in reliable sources give evidence of WP:notabilityof the article’s subject, including citations in the article, and Moscow Times,[43] Warsaw Institute’s Russia Monitor,[44] the Independent,[45] Newsweek,[46] etcetera. Title is immaterial and can be changed. —Michael Z. 15:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mzajac: These are sources simply reporting on unsolved deaths. They make no connected conspiracy and there is nothing to expand this article with. It should be deleted and merged into List of unsolved deaths. Jon698 (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. The sources do make connections: "In all cases, there are widespread suspicions that the deaths may have been staged as suicides" "Gazprom’s security agency is investigating into all deaths." "direct or indirect links to the Kremlin" "the executives knew a lot about the company’s financial flow" Are all connections stated in the linked sources. 21:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Cgbuff (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sourced arguments against such connections should be included as well of course. Cgbuff (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is patent nonsense. The sources link these specific deaths in at least three countries. —Michael Z. —Michael Z. 03:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process: "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." I think it is an important article. It must be improved. Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Poorly_written_article That does not support deletion. The name can be changed maybe. What would a better name be? There are many good reliable sources. Are there opposing sources that there is no connection? Would be good to add a controversy section on that, if so, but I have not found any. Cgbuff (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a genuine subject that has been discussed on some cable news channels. The lack of a named conspiracy has to do with the fact that these deaths are very recent and the lack of a free press in Russia that could investigate this. I have no sources to offer so I won't "vote" but I wanted to confirm that these "mystery deaths" have been a subject of discussion, at least in TV journalism, since Spring 2022. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it ends up kept, it will need to go back to the draftspace, unless someone expands it in the meantime. -Vipz (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This may be a conspiracy theory but it's getting lots of coverage in top tier media publications.Chagropango (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Survivor: Borneo. Redirect seems the best solution. Tone 09:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kenniff[edit]

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

Non-notable reality television contestant; competed on, but did not win, Survivor. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Survivor was not just a reality show. It was a seminal show watched by millions of Americans. Yes, I did not win. But winning a reality show is hardly "notable." I've done many more notable things with my life, including reporting for CBS news for 9 years (network and TV) and wrote a critically acclaimed book (and authored two others) which was praised by a Nobel Peace Prize winner and a UN Ambassador of Peace. So please delete your assertion for "non-notable" because Survivor was just one facet of an interesting and contributive life. It's insulting. Also invented The Jerk at Work. Many "notable" things. Please do not be biased for whatever reason. I promise to resist this clear unfounded bias in any legal way possible. Thank you. 104.186.77.128 (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please refrain from the legal threats and sign your posts using the four "~" symbols at the end. We will determine notability based on well-established wiki criteria with no bias. Oaktree b (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately on Wikipedia, there's a Wikipedia:BLP1E rule, so you're permanently defined by Survivor forever. (Say in the news, the way Paul Sorvino obits constantly reference Goodfellas; any article on you will refer to Survivor, as news media consistently refer to someones root notability, but as yours is a reality show, it'll mean on here you will either be deleted or have your article redirected to a "list of contestants" page.), so there's pretty much no way this article will not be deleted. (worth noting that in entertainment this rule only gets applied to fields that women like generally, like reality tv and beauty pageants etc, meanwhile for stuff men like - like sports, they have special guidelines that protect the athletes, where just one pro game is enough, despite every media reporting them in context to their team/league/sport too). So a reality star has special guidelines that specifically sink any of their chances of having a article here. Compare your article to one like Frank Opsal. There's hundreds of undeletable articles like Opsal's. Opsal passes on a special guideline, while a special guideline blocks yours. (in a way for you to understand wiki guidelines). As a reality star (even if you're apart of a genre pioneering cast) - you just got the short end of Wikipedia's stick. It's a big claim to say that Opsal and the hundreds of other minor one line olympics athletes like him are more fundamentally important than say, the cast of a show 50 million people watched or a show in which changed the landscape of tv forever (or other major reality show winners), but that's the result Wikis guidelines enforce and this is why you're article is being deleted - purely because you're a reality star, no special bias against you specifically. 124.150.83.81 (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS just hope this is atleast consistent and that than every single article in templates like Template:Survivor (American TV series) contestants, Template:Big Brother in the United States and Template:The Bachelor are deleted, as all of these contestants are notable just for one show (not deleting just major pioneering ones like Jun Song - a major figure in the context of Asian American representation on American TV, but also Dan Gheesling if this kind of purge happens). (but it'll also be deleting the hundreds of hours of editors work because of some rule not consistently applied in other fields like sports and we'll be losing the edit history of some of these articles going back to 2004/2005). 124.150.83.81 (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We could possibly redirect him to Survivor Borneo. Seminal show or not, this doctor isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of these reality show contestants being targeted right now for deletion should have been redirected from the start (not a fan of losing decades long edit histories); but at the same time - let's be honest here; there's many articles of cast members from seminal narrative based shows like Hugh Reilly from Lassie (1954 TV series) who are only known for one role and will only be brought up in relation to that role. These articles are not generally targeted and will be kept often. Only reality tv and soap opera articles are held to this standard in TV. (which is laughable for soap operas because one long running notable role is the point of a soap opera actors notability). Survivors first and second season were extremely important to the history of American TV (moreso than old shows like Lassie); the only reason these cast members are treated any differently than any other old show is purely because reality television generally has a negative reputation. Obviously under the current wiki rules - this guy does not qualify; but i think it speaks volumes where a show that had a double digit millions average viewers can't have 16 cast members for a article (or winners of shows like Big Brother are now being deleted); but we can have 215 articles in the Category:Shooters at the 1908 Summer Olympics; almost all stubs and which will go unchecked (olympics are seminal, not all of it's athletes) or worse, articles where the persons name isn't even known like H. Duke. Obviously the guidelines are set in stone, but it's a worthwhile question to ask why is there a difference between the guidelines and why reality television is at a specific downside compared to other fields and if it's purely because it's got a negative reputation as a field it's worth examining. Even if these were 16 perma stubs, it's no different to the hundreds of perma stub athletes. Two examples to the reality show contestant fallacy is that Jim Verraros is notable because he passes a music guideline for charting (as a minor cast member of an extremely popular reality shows first season and would never get any coverage now for anything other than the show) or that Crystal Cox would be one of the only kept Survivor contestants for passing the athlete guideline, despite winning a team medal and being stripped of her medal and likely to get very minor coverage outside of the show. All of this amounts to nothing as clearly it's unlikely important guidelines will change, but the least we can do is ponder why it's happening and it is a shame people have clearly put many hours into these contestants articles and a shame it has to be deleted on a technicality when other technicality's give rise to many examples of thousands of perma stubs. If the history of entertainment is written in 50 years, im more confident of reality television being covered in-depth than 1920s olympic shooting or olympic tug of war athletes and i do think it's a shame that we don't really do it like that here. (and if we go by reader interest after 22 years this "minor" ranked cast member gets 115,121 pageviews still [47], meanwhile olympic gold medalist H. Duke gets 969 pageviews in 7 years [48]). It's unfortunate that 100k people have to be find that information on other websites (like fan wikis) all because of some kind of inane guideline that favours 969 viewers. 124.150.83.81 (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked at Survivor: Borneo I noted that there is a lot of detail and information about the involvement of Kenniff is nicely included there which is how the people generally get covered. Gusfriend (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this thoughtful and clear description. I appreciate it! My thoughts are posted in another reply below, but wanted to thank you personally for being thorough, and reasonable. Seankenniff (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO as they didn't win and none of the other items appear to meet the level of notability required. Gusfriend (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And by Delete I include a redirect to the survivor season. Gusfriend (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Seankenniff (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see much beyond interviews from Survivor... There are a few articles/interviews in the Orlando Sun-Sentinel that look like fluff (Doctor talks health in your 40s). I think he's just using his "fame" to act as a talking head on health subjects. Nothing sustained since the show ended. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is noted, but respectfully, I reported for CBS News for 9 years, a major TV news organization. It was hardly "fluff". For one year, I reported for Extra, a nationally syndicated entertainment show. I wrote a column for the Miami Herald for a few years (they were partnered with CBS). At the time, the Miami Herald was a large circulation newspaper. I wrote two books, one of which got a lot of critical acclaim including praise from Nobel Peace Prize Winner, the late Desmond Tutu--who helped bring down the Apartheid system in South Africa. Super proud of that. This book was also published oddly in Korean. And I have many more cool things planned in the years ahead.

Thank you all for the explanations and opinions. Special thanks for the lengthy explanation of the lopsided Wikipedia rules above.

Truthfully, everything is a lot more clear to me during this deletion experience. I'm not even sure having a presence on Wikipedia is a desirable thing. That might sound like sour grapes, or just resignation--both are probably true to some extent. But I'm a man who believes that God knows what he does. My absence from Wikipedia will be a good thing for me in the end. I'm sure of that. This was never a vanity page, and wasn't even flattering to me. Now when people Google me, they'll get my more important work as a neurologist. Which includes the description a new neurological condition related to Covid-19, which we presented at the American Academy of Neurology in April,2021 (CADMAD syndrome). Describing a condition is a very difficult and rare thing. Most doctors never get the opportunity. And we were selected to present this research at the most prestigious annual gathering of neurologists in the world.

I'm sorry Wikipedia tasks its editors with deleting personal pages (I'd call it "unpersoning", just because I know my Orwell). That's not to say my deletion is politically motivated, because I have no firm political opinions. But I couldn't do this deletion thing, and frankly, I wouldn't do it. If it doesn't feel right, it probably isn't right.

Thanks again

Sean Seankenniff (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do this purely as a hobby, without volunteers this thing called wiki falls apart. Oaktree b (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being a reporter for CBS news isn't in itself notable, many hundreds of others do the same. This is SNOW at this point. A rather long missive from an individual that might or might not be the subject of the article in question. Still very minimal sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let it snow. Like I said, do whatever you want to do. Everything I've done, everywhere I have worked, is easily verifiable. And since I did not write a single word on my Wikipedia page, and do not edit or contribute to Wiki (or propose articles for deletion), I certainly should not be tasked with sourcing it. I lived it. I know what I've accomplished, and a lot of it is frankly notable. I'm content with that, whether the rules of Wikipedia find me "notable" or not. It really does not matter. I get it now. I'm not sure why the wiki team here has such animus. It's palpable. I hold no such disregard for any person, or their opinions. Appreciate your team's input. Thank you for reading mine. And I do like Wikipedia. With this NOTABLE exception, I find it very useful. Have a great life. Seankenniff (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent, in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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