< June 10	June 12 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Photovoltaic power station. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 06:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lobosillo Solar Park[edit]

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

Extremely short article. Two of the references are definitely not independent and one (the first one) is insignificant enough to not carry much purpose. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Photovoltaic power station. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 11 June 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!} 23:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RBA Arabia[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable.

Article was created Dec 2015-Jan 2016 by an editor who has not edited since, and whose only other earlier edits were to add material about "RBA Arabia" to Mini-MBA, immediately reverted as non-notable.

Article's only source is a dead link. Wayback machine archived it (in 2016 only, no more recent copies) at https://web.archive.org/web/20160217052233/http://www.rba-arabia.org/. The Arabic text, according to Google Translate, says:

Welcome to the official website

The Arab League for Entrepreneurship and Business Analysis

Supervised by the American Academy of Management and Finance ®

We work to serve you in the Middle East and North Africa

You can contact us here

American Academy of Management and Finance is a red link. Possibly what is meant is American Academy of Financial Management, but that article makes no mention of an RBA certification. Googling "RBA" is tricky as it has so many meanings but I can't find anything about "RBA Arabia". Altogether, this minimal stub does not seem worthy of our encyclopedia. PamD 21:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that it is not clear whether the article claims to be about an organisation (a chapter) or a qualification. Its single sentence " ... is a professional Business Designation and acronym for Registered Business Analysts Arabian Community Chapter." is confusing. The article was much longer before May 2016, when it was reduced to this single sentence with edit summary "tone down promotional material". PamD 21:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Business. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as appears non-notable. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 21:33, 16 June 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!} 04:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remix TV[edit]

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

Was unable to find sources. "remix tv" + the names of the hosts gave nothing but IMDb and false positives. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Show lacks significant notability.TH1980 (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero sources included in the article, and searches using the title plus various other key words turned up no coverage in reliable sources. The best I found was it being mentioned on someone's Linkedin profile as something they worked on. So, it probably actually briefly existed as some point, but it completely fails any test of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 01:54, 12 June 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 Jorge Páez. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azriel Páez[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOX. Had a brief pro career and notability is not inherited. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing, Mexico, and California. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found nothing to show he meets any WP notability criteria. No significant boxing wins in a 7 fight career (4 wins, 2 losses, 1 draw). It might be worth redirecting or merging this article with the one on his father. Family connections are the most notable thing about Azriel, but notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jorge Páez. There is nothing in the article to merge and he's already mentioned in his father's article. Papaursa (talk) 22:58, 14 June 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 General Hospital. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derk Cheetwood[edit]

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

Lacks notability; one role on General Hospital is the only role of note. Bgsu98 (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on Google to support inclusion on Wikipedia, non-notable subject. IrishOsita (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a notable actor with his role in General Hospital, playing the role from 2002 to 2020, [1]. I'm sure some of his film credits are significant enough. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to General Hospital. Not realising WP:NACTOR Laptopinmyhands (talk) 16:58, 12 June 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!} 04:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rules and regulations for God-heads (Ayyavazhi)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The unreferenced article with no inline citations related to the Ayyavazhi faith narrates "Rules and regulations for God-heads (Ayyavazhi)". I tried googling it to find mention in neutral references for notability, however have failed to find them - most of the search results are wiki-mirrors. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology, Religion, Hinduism, and India. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mythology related article based on Ayyavazhi Mythology. This event is elobrated in Akilathirattu Ammanai, the holy book of Ayyavazhi. More over the event is well elaborated in the books which are mentioned in the reference section. Also there are no different views over the same event for different authors. So no inline citations are needed repeatedly. -Vaikunda Raja :talk: 07:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Religious esoterica that has, from what I can see, attracted very little attention from people outside the sect makes it impossible for any article on the topic to be written from a neutral perspective. Hemantha (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hemantha. There's nothing worth merging either, unfortunately. Ovinus (talk) 02:07, 12 June 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!} 23:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Bitskoff[edit]

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

Excellent illustrator, but references are job profiles and examples of work. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 13:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, uncontroversially fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Estonia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I considered this as significant coverage. But it's possible the subject doesn't meet GNG. Dege31 (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is primary and an interview. scope_creep^Talk 23:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would categorize it as a profile rather than an interview, but I'm not seeing anything better, so Delete. Curiocurio (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the unsourced CV laundry list off the main space, added authority control, and de-orphaned. I think illustrating the 2021 Bloosbury editions of 4 Wayside School books is notable. As is/are(?) his illustrations of the Little Badman series. Unfortunately I am not finding RS for these accomplishments. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a secondary source is needed to verify that. Dege31 (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ExRat (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails the criteria WP:GNG & WP:CREATIVE for independent notability. Here's hoping this proves to be a case of jumping the gun. -The Gnome (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Per the nom, there are no reliable secondary sources here and so fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 01:31, 17 June 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. ✗plicit 00:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General Electric Building (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary dab page: the ambiguous entries are only two, and are already disambiguated via hatnote at their respective articles. No evidence that the other entries about factories and research laboratories are referred to as 'GE Building'. Deeday-UK (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Deeday-UK, why not notify the article creator? I haven't been super-active, and just randomly came to AFD Places category and see this. But I believe it is customary, if not absolutely required. --Doncram (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is not a requirement that a disambiguation page have more than two entries. And this has additional information, other buildings which might be called "GE Building". Quick google search on "GE Building" suggests, at its bottom, more: GE Building Schenectady, so there is in fact evidence that another of the entries is referred to as "GE Building". And then I see both "GE Building 40" and "GE Building 53" exist in Schenectady. The search also suggests "GE Building Cincinnati" and "GE Building Concordia". I'll stop there. --Doncram (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the missed notifications. With evidence I mean occurrences in reliable sources that the phrase 'GE Building' is commonly (or at all) used to refer to the GE lab in Schenectady or the GE plant in Philadelphia, and I see none of that. A better way to describe a Google search for 'GE Building' is that it returns zero hits for the Schenectady and Philadelphia sites, which suggests that very few people look for those two places when searching for 'GE Building'. Then, at the bottom, Google informs you that other users have made possibly related searches for GE stuff in Schenectady, but users googling 'GE Building Schenectady' don't need any disambiguation, because they will be served only results about the Schenectady building, and none of the two Manhattan buildings.

Conclusion: The only real ambiguity about 'GE building' is which of the two Manhattan skyscrapers it refers to, and for that a hatnote is enough. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there are multiple places known sometimes as "GE Building" and the disambiguation page is helpful, including because it can grow. --Doncram (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 11 June 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!} 04:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maruthi Vidya Kendra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree there is zero notability here. I note the previous AfD closer cited WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES but this is a) advised against in AfD arguments and b) since 2017 has stated, " secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not realising WP:NORG Laptopinmyhands (talk) 16:59, 12 June 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 06:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oxide Games[edit]

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

Notability of a business is WP:NOTINHERITED from their works. Company only released one notable game. Fails WP:NCORP. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Business, and Maryland. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect, the sources don't have me convinced they are an independently notable company. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more sources from high profile outlets covering the announcement of their game from yesterday. Zebraman123 (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Page As Is, with Minor Edits: Based on the announcement of their game Ara: History Untold as part of Xbox & Bethesda's showcase, they now have two games that are notable and one is published by Microsoft. This should clear notability requirements no? Zebraman123 (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOTINHERITED; we cannot accept articles that are only backed by sources with only passing mentions. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oxide Games is directly mentioned and the subject of the sources cited from Game Informer and VG247, two publications that are widely read in this category. Ara: History Untold is being actively reported on by similarly significant outlets with tens of millions of estimated readers per month. Zebraman123 (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There is also this from Gameindustry.biz which I believe is significant coverage for the studio. For some reason, the engine itself also has some press coverage.[2][3]. OceanHok (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage from Gameindustry.biz, Gameinformer and VG247 as stated above. Merko (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will try to clean it up so that it doesn't sound like an ad. Significant recent news justifies keep.. --ERegion (talk) 17:56, 15 June 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Do It (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found nothing at Newspapers.com and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's worth checking the external reviews section of a film's IMDb entry, that's where I found the link to a review by Entertainment Weekly here, and there is also a TV Guide review here. Just passes WP:GNG in my view but more reviews would help, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination per WP:NEXIST since there are reviews from Entertainment Weekly and TV Guide. Excellent work to User:Atlantic306. The Film Creator (talk) 22:28, 11 June 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!} 23:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adult non-pornographic website[edit]

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

There are no sources that indicate "adult non-pornographic website" is an actual term used by anyone. Appears to be an arbitrary category without any clear justification for an encyclopedia article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An earlier version of this article was nominated at AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult documentary in 2009, the result being to rename to the current title and cleanup. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the four sources cited in this article, two are about sexually explicit websites in general with no discussion of the kind of sexually explicit educational website that this article is about. The other two are archived pages from sexually explicit educational websites (both of which are now apparently defunct). Note that there are no secondary sources cited that discuss this kind of website in general -- just primary sources, with the only secondary sources cited not being directly relevant. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Can't find a single source that isn't a Wikipedia mirror that uses this term, and the type of website it's discussing doesn't seem notable. The closest topic I can think of is sex education, but that's usually applied to adolescents. Ovinus (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition or in this case an original research dictionary definition. This term has not gained traction.--Mvqr (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources aren't convincing me that this is common parlance. Gnomatique (talk) 23:49, 12 June 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, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Lore: Curse of the Shadow[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found one review on Rotten Tomatoes (needs 2 or more suitable and reliable reviews to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST). I found nothing on Newspapers.com.

@User:Donaldd23: you claim sources exist. Could you please provide them? The Film Creator (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like it was originally released as Saga: Curse of the Shadow, but offhand I'm not finding anything for that either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was also only able to find the one review mentioned in the nomination. Using the alternate title mentioned by ReaderofthePack, I found two books that mentioned it, but neither were substantial at all - one was just a list of movies filmed in Utah, and the other was just a single sentence mention in a discussion on the portrayal of mermaids in popular culture. As neither the director nor either production companies are notable either, there is no reasonable redirect target. Rorshacma (talk) 14:20, 17 June 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!} 23:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaunak Sen[edit]

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

Not notable. KnightMight (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KnightMight (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
Comment: The article complies with the guidelines laid down in Wikipedia:Notability (people). The WP:BASIC is met as there is significant coverage of the person and as per WP:ANYBIO, Shaunak Sen's film All That Breathes won the Grand Jury Prize in World Cinema Documentary Competition at 2022 Sundance Film Festival and Golden Eye award for the best documentary at 2022 Cannes Film Festival. His previous documentary Cities of Sleep was screened at NYIFF, TIDF, and MIFF. Both the documentaries are on social issues. WP:FILMMAKER criteria is also met as his works have been appreciated widely. On Rotten Tomatoes his film has a 100% approval rating based on reviews from 26 critics, with an average rating of 8.50/10. Considering all these I recommend that the article be retained. Rickyurs (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have added content that might help re-inforce notability... diff - JTF2020 (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep currently there seems to be enough coverage about the person to have any notability issue. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:FILMMAKER is easily realized. Have been hearing so much about him. I woke up with thought of creating article for him finding that one exists and is in AFD. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you Google you can see a lot of news coverages from reliable sources like The Hindu, The New Indian Express, The Gurdian, The New Work Times, The Indian Express, BBC. It shows that the person is widely cited. So according to Wikipedia's rule Shaunak Sen is meeting WP:GNG. Trakinwiki (talk) 12:18, 14 June 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!} 23:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Stambaugh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is this nomination a joke? Has no basic search been done? Search for "スタンボー華" and you will see many sources. Stambaugh is close to be an international, being called up by unable due to injury and has much sources covering her like: [4][5][6][7].Fulmard (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - seems like nominator did not check Japanese-language sources. Seany91 (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks like there's just about enough for GNG. Would also say JOCR is more than just a passing mention of the subject. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above. Giant Snowman 13:24, 14 June 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 space: Draft:Shendra Casimiro. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 06:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shendra Casimiro[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Latin America, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify.--MonFrontieres (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - reasonable number of news hits but all of the coverage seems fairly trivial. Subject is only 16 and has just burst onto the international stage so has potential future notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as per Spiderone, considering subject is 16 and has scored on the international level. Likely case of too soon on the article for now. JTtheOG (talk) 01:01, 19 June 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild Stallion[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing in Newspapers.com. I did find a review from the Dove Foundation. Needs one more suitable and reliable review to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Radio Times gave it two stars, but it's more of a summary than a review. Certes (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Radio Times link is a capsule review and capsule reviews are insufficient enough to fully establish notability per WP:NFSOURCES. The Film Creator (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One from the Deseret News, [8]. Oaktree b (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a newspaper listing, which also considered insufficient enough to fully establish notability per NFSOURCES. The Film Creator (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the Dove review you found, there is one from CineMagazine cited in the article. CineMagazine is an acceptable source and is used in hundreds of Wikipedia film articles. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness! I completely didn’t realize the Cinemagazine source in the article. I therefore speedy withdraw this nomination per NEXIST since there are reviews from Cinemagazine and Dove. My humble apologies. The Film Creator (talk) 04:39, 12 June 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!} 23:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FNC: Uncut[edit]

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

Completely unsourced (and tagged as such since 2009) article about a television series with no strong claim to passing WP:TVSHOW. To be fair, this was created at a time when Wikipedia commonly (albeit unwisely) extended an automatic presumption of notability to any television series that verifiably existed regardless of the state of sourcing, but that's long since been deprecated and a television series now has to show a WP:GNG-worthy volume of coverage about it in sources independent of itself -- but I can't find any evidence that this has any such thing, and it also doesn't help that this is simultaneously categorized as an American television series while being stub-sorted as a Canadian one, leaving its actual production nationality in question. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this show from having to have media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources found. Spinoff of a show that isn't itself notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the literal definition of non-notable schedule filler where other shows are used to create another one out of whole cloth with outtakes that would look out-of-place in a professional production, even moreso within the bounds of a niche network which already has a small and niche audience. Nate • (chatter) 02:57, 12 June 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smithsburg shooting[edit]

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

Zero evidence of any lasting effects or impact over a large geographic area. This was a local shooting of minor importance. Veggies (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Firearms, and Maryland. Veggies (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. It's a newsworthy event. Notable in that sense. Will it have lasting impact? It's too early to tell. But I think keep, no harm in keeping it up considering how newsworthy and notable it is right now. We can revisit this later if there is not sustained or lasting coverage. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/09/us/maryland-shooting-columbia-machine/index.html CT55555 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Love of Corey (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a strictly breaking news story (WP:NOTNEWS). Already covered in List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022, where shootings this deadly happen almost weekly and mass shootings are an almost everyday event. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because it is a mass shooting doesn't make it very notable. There has been many mass shootings recently with the same number of victims without a article and the article itself has no references.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 01:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only in America, alone in the Western world, could the murder of three people be described as "a local shooting of minor importance"! Mass killings are notable even in America. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a judgement over the victims—it's simply a statement relative to the Wikipedia guidelines. In a country of 330 million people with 400 million private firearms, this is not a notable event. -- Veggies (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Workplace shooting by an aggrieved employee. No socio-political motive evident, no lasting significance. We don't need an article every time three people are killed. WWGB (talk) 03:55, 16 June 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!} 23:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of railways that use balloon loops[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, specifically "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." I am seeking deletion with prejudice against merging or redirecting - this information is fundamentally not encyclopedic and does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. We are not a directory of everything that has ever existed, and this list is so broad that a complete one would have hundreds or even thousands of entries. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This was created six months ago as a fork of Balloon loop; it was previously a section of the balloon loop article. While the list was not split off due to policy issues, one may be justified to remove that list if it still had existed, since the section would fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE. By the same token, a standalone list on the topic would also fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 June 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!} 23:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lines.com[edit]

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

The sources offer nothing more than passing mentions of some studies conducted by Lines.com. I have not been able to find any meaningful third-party coverage about this website. It appears it does not meet WP:WEBPAGE/WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Baseball, Basketball, Ice hockey, Websites, and United States of America. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I only found press releases and the mentioned studies they've been able to get a handful of sites to cite. Skynxnex (talk) 20:22, 13 June 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elza (film)[edit]

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

Does not satisify WP:NFF. Unable to find sources using terms like 'Elza India film' or 'Elza India movie' etc given that the title is a common term with different uses. Sources on the page are promotional and does not establish the notability of the subject. Article was draftified once, and moved back promptly by the author of the article. – robertsky (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Coverage is not independent and production has not be notable to meet WP:NFF. BOVINEBOY2008 15:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The article has a news reference from Times of India malayalam which is a detailed article about the movie including its release date. It mentions the movie has already started shooting and is set to release in Nov 2022. Thus WP:NFF wont stand. Moreover other significant news articles also furnished. Jehowahyereh (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehowahyereh exactly which part of that article indicated the release date and that the shooting had started? I don't see them using Google Translate. Do share the relevant quotes and translations. Thanks. – robertsky (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF is still applicable: films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. emphasis mine. The sources are repetative and one can argue that they may be regurgitation of press releases. They do not establish the notability of the subject. Having a release date does not guarantee the notability of the film. – robertsky (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The film's notability is proved as per the 2nd point of Inclusionary criteria of articles in WP:NFO as there are a number of notable persons involvement in the movie Jehowahyereh (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second point of NFO needs to demonstrate that the notable person was significantly involved and is a major part of their career. Not just that notable persons are involved. BOVINEBOY2008 13:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFO: An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there. Is there enough information here to clutter up the respective actors' BLPs? No. – robertsky (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely notable person was significantly involved and is a major part of their career. The composer of the movie is doing a multilingual movie for the first time and newspaper sources mentions he composes 25 songs for this movie. That is a major part of his career Jehowahyereh (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, does it clutter up the BLP? I see only one line of this at Jibin George Sebastian, the composer that you mention. – robertsky (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the source for the 25 songs [9] starts as Musician Jibin George Sebastian has composed many songs in Hollywood and Mollywood industries - why does this film become a major part of his career ? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This movie is his debut to Bollywood, the most important movie Industry in India, which is vital and is a major part of his career Jehowahyereh (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be your opinion. Can you provide a source which details/describes - this film being a major part of his career ? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we'd need independent and reliable sources to explain how this film is a significant part of their career, not just an opinion of a Wikipedia user. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Indeed, I'm as well unable to find sources to determine whether the production is notable, per WP:NFF, thus failing WP:NFF and becoming a WP:TOOSOON. I would also argue for draftification, but the film release about half-an-year away. Upon release, and after establishing the notability, it could be simply recreated or be asked for a WP:REFUND — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DaxServer. Does not meet NFF at this point due to lack of significant coverage on its production. May be recreated if anad when it releases, and becomes notable under NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:14, 12 June 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sica Ho[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ACTOR, WP:MUSIC. No records, no chart placings, no film roles, one appearance in a redlinked reality show. Contestant No. 12 is not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Hong Kong. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Kong, Cherie (2022-02-04). "【專訪】全民造星 4 人氣參賽者「主席」 SICA ：想做就做，這樣最純粹的心態，將會是一個最好看的演出！". Mings (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-02-04. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  The article notes from Google Translate: ""The Rampage" is SICA's favorite performance, but I guess for the audience, perhaps one of the most unforgettable scenes SICA brought was falling down the stairs during the optional dance of Anita Mui's "The Demon Girl". ... SICA, who has experience in cosplay performances and likes Japanese culture, made her debut as a "JK" Japanese female high school student in the preliminary round. She danced and sang the classic fast song "The Impatient People" by COOKIES, the founder of the Hong Kong girl group ..."
2. 劉傳謙 (2022-01-31). "日系Sica開IG直播化身「一人女團」　爆笑翻唱COLLAR出道作原文網址: 日系Sica開IG直播化身「一人女團」　爆笑翻唱COLLAR出道作" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Although the women's team COLLAR was officially formed, many contestants of "Making Stars IV" still became the focus after the finals, including Sica (He Luoyao) known as "Chairman". After the game, Sica will still regularly broadcast live broadcasts. In addition to interacting with the audience, she will also accept singing in front of the camera from time to time. After COLLAR released the new work "Call My Name!", Sica decided to use her own power to sing in the Instagram live broadcast."
3. Yip, Casey (2022-02-07). "造星IV遺珠Yoyo Alice Sica組團YOLICA！網友大讚完勝COLLAR：呢啲先係女團" (in Chinese). Yahoo! News. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Sica (He Luoyao), a 21-year-old who has a lot of cosplay performance experience and likes Japanese culture, showed her super "executive" skills in the top 40 performances, and was praised by the judges. Although she finally stopped at the top 40, she has won Instructor Liang Zuyao invited to co-star in the stage play "Tongcai Street Zombie Battle" (added version), and at the same time appeared in the ViuTV program "囝囝女女730" to sing. With a changeable image, she will surely have more performance opportunities in the future."
4. 陳心怡 (2022-04-18). "【全民造星IV】Sica瘋癲狂放背後信心不足　何洛瑤：正在學習和自信相處". Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "The 4th "National Star Making" has created idol groups and popular singers, and also paved the way for many contestants to enter the entertainment industry. The 21-year-old Sica (He Luoyao) left an impression on the audience as a Japanese two-dimensional girl in "Making Stars IV". Although she stopped in the top 40, but because of the many supporters on the Internet, she became a "return to me" A part of the series", and was recognized by ViuTV and signed as an artist. However, Sica, who often "jumps" and is named "President of the White Card", seems to want to use her crazy and wild side to cover up her lack of self-confidence."
5. "何洛瑤22歲生日應援廣告前打卡︰願我快樂". Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2022-05-25. Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Yesterday (24th) was the 22nd birthday of Sica He Luoyao (Sica), a contestant of "Making Stars IV" who is now an artist under MakerVille. She uploaded a photo of holding a birthday cake on social platforms, and then punched in in front of the birthday bus stop support advertisement sent by fans."
6. "勁騎26｜造星女Sica搜查官造型勁吸睛硬撼Shirley沈殷怡公主造型". Oriental Sunday [zh] (in Chinese). 2022-04-28. Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "The guest lineup of "Jing Qi 26" hosted by Alton@MIRROR is quite "heavy girl", in the trailer Sica He Luoyao's all-black tights became the focus, combining stylish, sexy and glamorous. Sica He Luoyao is quite eye-catching in her all-black tights. Sica's female knight's appearance Cosplay's basic image is ever-changing. Fragrant cars have always been matched with beautiful women. Sica appeared in a tight black suit like a "investigator" in the trailer of "Jing Qi 26", which is expected."
7. 羅志宏 (2021-12-03). "全民造星4｜Sica台上意外仆落樓梯神執生獲花姐5連狂讚日本動漫少女蛻變Deep V漁網性感女郎". U Lifestyle [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Sica (name: He Luoyao), who is only 21 years old, is currently working as a waiter in a coffee shop. She has different cosplay experience and has played various Japanese anime characters, with a vivid appearance. As early as in the knockout round of the top 96, Sica's two-dimensional character with great contrast was impressive. She danced and sang Cookies's classic "The Heartbroken" in a Japanese style, and made heart expressions with her hands that were funny and funny, forming a strong contrast."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sica Ho (traditional Chinese: 何洛瑤; simplified Chinese: 何洛瑶) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have often had occasion to admire your diligence, as I do here. But the above to me do seem to constitute 'trivial coverage' which 'is not usually sufficient to establish notability' Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources provide signficant biographical coverage about the subject. The article notes that Sica Ho was born 24 May 2000; she was in a choir in elementary school; she was a waitress in a coffee shop; she competed in ViuTV's King Maker IV, which had 96 contestants; she was given the nickname "Chairman"; she likes Japanese culture, did cosplay performances with anime characters, and debuted at the competition dressed as a Japanese high school student; and she sang the Cookies Hong Kong song "The Impatient People" during the competition. She placed in the Top 40 of the competition. After the competition, she was signed to ViuTV and appeared on its music variety show Youngster Show Time [zh]. She was a guest on the shows Master & Fire Cheer You Up [zh] and Free Riders [zh]). Liang Zuyao, the director of the stage play Tongcai Street Zombie Battle, invited her to perform in the play.
  King Maker IV finished airing on 25 December 2021, and Sica Ho received significant coverage in articles published on 31 January 2022, 4 February 2022, 7 February 2022, 18 April 2022, 28 April 28 2022, and 25 May 2022. This demonstrates that she has received sustained coverage in reliable sources for months despite her placing only in the Top 40 of the competition. There is enough coverage to allow her to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.
  Cunard (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Please note WP:BASIC States: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Lovewiki106 (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Meets WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"Lovewiki106 (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep coverage isn't the best or massively in depth but it does satisfy WP:BASIC. There's a difference between a stub and outright not notable. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:48, 19 June 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 14:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowhead Park, Indiana[edit]

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

AN early 1950s subdivision. Searching mostly produced hits on places of the same name in other states, or clickbait or GNIS precursors. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neighborhood/subdivision requires substantive coverage per GEOLAND2. Reywas92^Talk 14:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the lack of information that could be of any use to Wiki readers. --Evilfreethinker (talk) 16:10, 13 June 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 14:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linus Idahosa[edit]

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

"...a major player in Africa’s creative and entertainment industry", passing mentions and interviews presented as notability for this non-notable owner of a media, PR and creative agency. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Advertising, and Nigeria. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recommended for a complete rewrite. Article has been written from a bias point of view. Author should rewrite in such a way that it doesn't praise or give unnecessary accolade to the subject.Exquisit (talk) 13:54, 12 June 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 14:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Hall Tremaine[edit]

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

Wealthy woman collects art, publishes society magazine. That's the content presented here in all of two lines. Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She owned one of the "greatest 20th Century art collections" [10] and was known as a collector [11]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And her collection of papers is kept by the Smithsonian. [12] Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her husband, Burton did, according to that source. And it was cited as 'one of the finest' not 'greatest'. Is a wealthy art collector notable? No, by no means necessarily so. Show me a WP guideline that says having your papers in the Smithsonian/Bodleian or other library confers notability and I'll gladly strike the nomination. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in article seem enough but there's also [13], from 1984 NYT: "ART VIEW; A COLLECTION THAT BREATHES THE SPIRIT OF MODERNISM": Emily Hall Tremaine made her first serious art acquisition in 1936: Braque's 1927 painting The Black Rose,. From this estate sale article on the NYT [14], it definitely makes clear that it was a pretty equal between husband and wife collecting it but it was his estate since he died after she did: Widely regarded as one of the best collections of 20th-century art in the United States ... In the late 1980's, however, they decided that at their deaths, the major objects would be sold, with the proceeds going to charities.. There's also many more hits in proquest etc about her, their collection, a few more obits, and the foundation named after her. Skynxnex (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This doesn't seem like a nomination based off policy. A proper WP:BEFORE would've been effective here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A peer-reviewed paper about her: [15]. I'm almost certain we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I improved the article some. As noted above by Skynxnex, the foundation was named after the subject and she started the renowned collection before she married her husband. Notability is clearly shown in the sources. Meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems like the nomination is based on a personal judgement about what is/is not important. The page meets Wikipedia guidelines and there are actually are a lot of people who think collectors and collections can be worth reading about, hence the sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:38, 15 June 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. No prejudice against redirect. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 06:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Internal Market (Story)[edit]

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

Neither reference provided gives any indication of the subject's notability: the first is a link to a place where the story may be purchased, and the second provides a link to download the story in PDF format. Either better Arabic sources need to be provided or we cannot host an article like this. A loose necktie (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteA short story with absolutely no evidence of any impact or cultural relevance, doesn't even have an Arabic WP page. Fails WP:GNG. BTW, Choukri's notable 'For Bread Alone' doesn't have a page, why would a little known short story? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mohamed Choukri. I have removed the plot summary as a copyvio (it was a direct copy-paste of the reference cited). With or without the plot summary, this does not appear notable for a stand-alone article. I would take no issue with a redirect to article about the author. Otherwise, I would support deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 17:33, 11 June 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!} 23:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Westbrook Hay School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No doubt the building is notable but is the school notable? The lack of independent sources suggest not. Thus seems to fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed, the building is notable. It's a Grade II listed building (under the title Westbrook Hay School).[16] So per WP:GEOFEAT, whose wording is pretty unequivocal, it is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then it needs to be an article about the building! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be about both, you know! But we are looking at the notability of the subject here, not the quality or content of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I rearranged the text to reflect the primary notability of the building (which is the title of the article) and only secondarily the current inhabitants of the building. The building is inherently notable per WP:GEOFEAT (thanks, Necrothesp!), and the description of the prep school is appropriate to include, even the prep school it is not independently notable. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Is the name of the building actually "Westbrook Hay School" or had the building a different name before the school moved in? The Grade-listing is probably post-moving in of the school.The Banner talk 15:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The text of the National Heritage List says, "The seat of the Ryder family. Used by RAF in 2nd World War: the Hemel Hempstead New Town Commission thereafter. Became a school 1963." Our text describing the prep school says, "...it was forced out of its old premises by the Commission for New Towns as part of its development of the new town in 1963. It took on its present name at its present site that year." So the school's name changed with its relocation to "Westbrook Hay", which was probably the original building name. I'll look for references to the building prior to 1963. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  According to The History of Parliament, when Hon. Richard Ryder died, "...had no surviving children and left Westbrook Hay and the residue of his estate to Granville Ryder." So his estate was "Westbrook Hay" before the school occupied the building. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can we agree on a name change of the article after a withdrawal of the nomination? The Banner talk 16:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the name before or after the school moved into the building in question, it's worth bearing in mind WP:COMMONNAME. I would imagine that today, since the school moved in, the building as a whole is referred to as "Westbrook Hay School", but its hard to tell as most of the more recent sources are probably referring to the school rather than the building. In other words, it's probably worth having discussion about this move to explore this matter further. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    
    I have no objection to changing the title to Westbrook Hay. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GEOFEAT, being a listed building. I would've suggested shifting the emphasis of the article towards the building, but Grand'mere Eugene has been a star and already gone and done it! HenryTemplo (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep being a Grade 2 listed and an independent school may just qualify it as notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GEOFEAT Djflem (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request close as keep, as nominator. Now the scope of the article has changed from the school to the Grade listed building, there is no need to nominate the school any further. After close a rename will follow to correct the title to the new article scope. The Banner talk 08:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The grade listed building is Westbrook Hay School; what name change? Djflem (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The original building was named "Westbrook Hall". The Banner talk 09:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, today, it appears that the building is simply called "Westbrook Hall School" (although it's unclear), so it might be worthwhile having a separate move discussion on the matter. HenryTemplo (talk) 10:10, 16 June 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 12:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Elms School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability is rather shaky with few independent, reliable sources available. Thus seems to fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 400 year old school, the oldest prep school in England - a guild school at that. Has to have notability. It doesn't help the AfD, but ~~perhaps interestingly Benjamin Britten~~ Benjamin Brittan's brother (!) was a master there...

Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The school is 408 years old - it's common sense that sources exist. Since the internet is less than 1/10th the school's age, most sources will be offline, but nevertheless Google Search brings up several things, including articles about a recent merger with another school. While Wikipedia is online, it is not required that sources be online. Jacona (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not standard that a school is notable because it is old. Every article has to prove its own notability. There is no room for guesswork (or irrelevant details) in a reliable encyclopedia. The Banner talk 12:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  But as humans, we all develop some form of common sense. We all use it in differing degrees to help us to determine what to do. I could spend a lot of time working on finding sources on a 408 year old school, but common sense tells me it's unnecessary. In spite of that, I did use Google, and found some stuff, which verified my common sense, and satisfied my need to know. You've decided differently, which is your right. Carry on, sans common sense. Jacona (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can be a little bit less pointy than that, folks. It's the oldest preparatory school in the country. For that alone, it's notable IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It common sense to prove the notability instead of assuming it. The Banner talk 15:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG as with any British school of this age. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. This source[17] has a paragraph about the school, but actually casts serious doubt on the age claims (and only recognises 1867 as the starting date). This 1909 book[18] also states the school was then only 30 years old (I can only see a snippet, no idea how much infoit actually has). Oh, and Benjamin Britten seems to have nothing to do with this school, but his brother Robert (Bobby) worked there. Perhaps better to draftify it, and rewrite it once sources have been found and accessed, so we are certain that it is notable and that the information in it is verifiable. Fram (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're bang on the money, I misread the source which actually clearly says Benji's brother Bobby went there. Woops! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK just saw this, editing the article accordingly. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added a few sources (including The Rise of the English Prep School cited above) and facts, so the article wouldn't look so barren citation wise. Agree that there is a lot more that could be done to improve the article by historians rather than just contemporary assessments of the school as it exists today-ish. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:57, 17 June 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 12:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Blue Coat School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As far as I know, old is not the same as notable. With 3 of it 5 sources being the school website and a dead link, we have little proof. A WP:BEFORE gives me the idea that this school fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 12:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have considered this one carefully, especially as it is a primary school and these are typically considered even less notable than secondary and beyond. This particular institution is old indeed, but it has had some interesting coverage over the years. A search on newspapers.com has returned this (from 1886), this, this and this from a very brief search. There was a fairly significant editorial article in 1955 here with memories from former pupils. There is definitely further newspaper coverage as well and especially in the case of the latter of those I linked, seems reasonably substantial. That 3rd article from 1964 discussed a transformation of the school and afforded a fair amount of prose. I think someone who is willing to put the effort in could develop this and demonstrate sufficient notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: Not sure if you have seen my !vote here yet, but I am wondering what your view is on the quality of what I found (which isn't exhaustive) and whether you consider it sufficient? It's up to you if you withdraw this one or not. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plain and well: what you list here and not in the article is insufficient. It is the article that must prove its notability, not AfD. The Banner talk 19:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely baffled by your response and wonder if you understand what an AfD actually is? An article doesn't have to be touched during an AfD, as it is not where the discussion takes place to determine that notability (that said, I often improve an article if !voting keep). I personally believe notability can be established and have offered a rationale for that view. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Bungle (whom I must thank for finding the sources). Yes, old ≠ notable, but old can mean more coverage in reliable (etc) sources, which Bungle has demonstrated in this case. HenryTemplo (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep old is not notable, per se, but with each year the more likely a source will be found. After 300 years, I’d be shocked if no sources existed, though not shocked if we didn’t find them online. At least so long as it’s in a large English speaking country, where most of our editors reside. The sources Bungle has provided are WP:SIGCOV demonstrating that the article meets GNG. Jacona (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG as with any other British school of this age. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well done by Bungle, who identifies articles that show the significant coverage in reliable sources that the article currently lacks. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:02, 18 June 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 12:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Akbari[edit]

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

Neither of the two sources provided show significant coverage of the subject as they are stats databases. In my searches, including using the Persian name, I was unable to find any evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer nom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)No Farsi page, which is always a worry. Best[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot locate any online English- or Persian-language sources besides statistical database entries. Fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 03:37, 16 June 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 Little River (Withlacoochee River tributary). Consensus is that the evidence provided for keeping does not necessarily indicate a notability pass. Hog Farm _Talk 05:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior Creek (Georgia)[edit]

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

Contested WP:BLAR to its parent body of water, Little River (Withlacoochee River tributary) . Per WP:GEOLAND, natural features are notable "provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". In this case, there appears to be no significant sourcing beyond databases and maps, which means it would fail GEOLAND. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Georgia (U.S. state). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I added Warrior John and his source to the Little River article, which was the only substantive content here. It should be a redirect. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect > Little River (Withlacoochee River tributary). Djflem (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its watershed is large enough that it has been federally assigned its own 10-digit hydrologic unit code, and as such is a unit of governmental study such as here and here. --TimK MSI (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am agog to hear about where in WP:GEOLAND or any other WP notability guideline, the federally assigned 10-digit hydrologic unit code is mentioned. Agog, I tell you. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I mention it as a good-faith effort to indicate the size of the creek's watershed, and to support what follows-- the two government reports on the creek's watershed (which I found via a cursory Google search), not as an assertion of notability in itself. Apologies that this wasn't clear. Watersheds of this size tend to be a topic of governmental study, resulting in reports that contain "information beyond statistics and coordinates," and such reports are indeed "known to exist" in this case. Thanks--TimK MSI (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those appear to be primary sources though, especially that first one, the government action plan. Like...by analogy, to me, that'd be like taking a government plan to build a new road as an indication of the notability of the road. I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Little River (Withlacoochee River tributary) with no prejudice towards recreation if someone wants to expand it with multiple RS beyond primary sources. I think TimK MS makes a compelling case that it's size may in fact mean that there are sources out there that could be used to expand the article further. However, I think we would need something more than just government reports. Until that RS emerges, a redirect it the best option.4meter4 (talk) 03:52, 19 June 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!} 04:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public Financial Management[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Prodded by Slywriter (talk · contribs) with rationale No indication of notability. Single source. However, the article was previously at AFD so it is ineligible for prod Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are different subjects with same article name, but no objection to AfD instead of PROD, just noting.Slywriter (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has little value, less sourcing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as the majority of it is a word-for-word copy from the source. NZ government documents appear to be cc-by-4.0 released which means it's not a copy-vio, but there's still absolutely no point in having articles that are simply copies of government documents. This one is particularly misleading as the article doesn't mention New Zealand anywhere, talks about "the Government" without specifying which government, and leaves the reader having to deduce that this is not an article about public financial management in general, it is an article about one specific aspect of government in one specific country. Elemimele (talk) 12:16, 11 June 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 speedy keep. Page was nominated in violation of an interaction ban, and no other users have !voted to delete. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Gjøvik[edit]

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

Not notable & WP:NOTNEWS - Article is written in a nice encyclopedia style, but most of the citations are not about the subject. The subject's article revolves almost entirely around subject's allegations during none of which offer substantiation from reliable sources, leaving the article feeling like the editor putting the cart before the horse. The article offers no accomplishments of the subject, other than in subject's academia, which is not notable. Sources are high-quality, but because the content is what seems to be unsubstantiated claims against a company, resulting article looks like WP:GOSSIP that was only news-worthy because the target of subject's allegations is Apple Inc., and during the summer of 2021 during the AppleToo event. I do not think we should publish every single person's allegations about notable entities on Wikipedia, and I think this falls under WP:BIO1E or WP:BLP1E. There is no lasting coverage beyond the employee activism (and complaints filed regarding it) events subject was involved in. Policy: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. edited 20:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Sebastien1118 (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject has significant coverage in for example Bloomberg, Business Insider, Gizmodo Mujinga (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on WP:BIO1E? Sebastien1118 (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In-depth coverage in high-quality sources. The nature of the allegations make this a challenging article from an NPOV perspective but not an appropriate candidate for deletion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on WP:BIO1E? Sebastien1118 (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sebastien1118: could you please indicate that you added BIO1E to your opening comment after it was replied to. The best way to do so is explained at WP:TALK#REPLIED.
I don't think BIO1E applies here, as Gjovik has been covered by reliable sources in relation to multiple events. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.

I couldn't find events other than the employee activism wave from last year, can you share the others? Sebastien1118 (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The part of the comment edit you missed is putting <ins> tags around the added material. The activism "wave" includes multiple separate events/actions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems a little odd that Sebastien1118's very first edit is to propose this page for deletion. Regardless, there are articles which cover Gjøvik, in addition to her interactions with Apple (e.g., the article by Lucy Burton in the Telegraph, and the one by Kellen Browning in the New York Times). DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DaffodilOcean: I am a 14-year IP editor. This is my first AfD, which requires an account. Please keep the discussion to the subject matter.

Less than one-third of the references are about the subject (and several don’t even mention subject), and all of them are the subject’s allegations. I have never seen a biography that consisted solely of news about complaints being filed. Coverage is supposed to be lasting. If none of these complaints amounted to anything, it explains why the coverage dried up, and this article is nothing but an Anti-Apple gossip article. Example: Subject requested a “right-to-sue”, which subject was granted. Subject did not file a lawsuit within the window, so the only coverage of this subject suing Apple, which would be notable, is that subject intended to sue. I would argue that inclusion of intention to sue is WP:UNDUE. I firmly believe this could be done with almost all of this biography based on the lack of lasting coverage. Sebastien1118 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surprised to see this nomination, to be honest. A careful pair of eyes needed to ensure the article stays encyclopaedic, but AfD isn't cleanup and Gjøvik is clearly notable from the coverage presented alone. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on WP:BIO1E? Sebastien1118 (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator's argument doesn't cite a relevant notability guideline in trying to declare the individual non-notable, though I presume the nominator thinks this article fails WP:NBASIC given that it's the GNG-equivalent for people. There's a credible argument that this passes that notability guideline, including The Telegraph, Gizmodo, and The Verge. WP:NOTNEWS appeals also feel like a misfire, since that policy is focused on the notion that not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia and this is clearly not an event. But, I do have a concern about WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E—the only coverage of this individual appears to be in the context of the 2021 employee activism campaigns at Apple. I'm leaving this as a comment rather than a "redirect" or "merge" !vote for two reasons: (1) there are caveats in each of those policies for when the event is highly significant and the individual's role within it is a large one and (2) This article muddles the waters regarding 1E. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article you referenced is not about the subject of this AfD.

The Telegraph piece is a continuation of the 2021 complaints previously published in The Verge, just brought to the UK. Sebastien1118 (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it would make sense to move these complaints to Criticism of Apple Inc., under 2021-2022 employee activism subsection (or something?) Sebastien1118 (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for posting the incorrect link from The Verge. Thank you for posting the correct link. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I updated and added WP:BIO1E which I had meant to cite. Thank you, too. Sebastien1118 (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it inappropriate that Sebastien1118 (the nominator) continues to edit the article while this AfD is open, seemingly trying to degrade the article. For example, this removal of a secondary source as an 'extra ref' renders certain claims solely dependent on primary sources. Also, Sebastien1118's edit history shows a pattern that looks like canvassing and their behaviour here looks like borderline bludgening of this AfD. I hope they will be less fervent in their desire to see this article deleted and let the process proceed in peace. I would also like to call attention to the fact that the article was the subject of an unresolved discussion at WP:COIN less than six months ago, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 184. --SVTCobra 01:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep', easily notable. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:44, 13 June 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 12:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pikes Peak Christian School[edit]

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

No evidence of notability on Google, and all references are about routine coverage by government/accreditation sites or sites that simply catalogue reviews and information about different schools. Tube·of·Light 03:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Colorado. Tube·of·Light 03:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I found out just now that the article was created by someone using the school's website name as their username. Tube·of·Light 03:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not meet notability guidelines. Only secondary coverage is this article which trivially mentions the school briefly, this obituary, this wedding announcement, and this brief mention. The school is not significantly covered in these sources or anywhere else. MaxnaCarter (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sourcing available to meet WP:GNG, as with any other American secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the sources are by government sites, accreditation organisations, and sites that catalogue info about literally every school. We need news articles and coverage by notable sources that are not connected to the school or to accreditation organisations. Tube·of·Light 14:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Couldn't find much coverage other than what has been provided by the other voters. Ping me if someone has found better sources. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist". Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:32, 11 June 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 23:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IBC24[edit]

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

Appears to fail the WP:GNG. Deprodded in 2018, thus the AfD. Possible case of Hindi-language sources being available but unreadable to me. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement. Yoonadue (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Madhya Pradesh. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the best source you can find is a Tata Communications CDN win story, you know you're in trouble. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you please Share me details, we shared few info about ibc24. Please tell us what are the problems and how we can improve it. 103.125.53.17 (talk) 07:49, 28 June 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!} 04:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Arsenault[edit]

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

Refs seems to be non-RS. Music producer. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No real secondary sourcing. scope_creep^Talk 08:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Producers are not notable, this one included. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:35, 11 June 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!} 06:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adrenaline MMA Training & Fitness[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts gym. Most of the sources are about fighters, the owner and interview pieces instead of the gym/company which either make the source not independent or relevant. Doesn't seem to be much about the gym itself in detail. The article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG Imcdc (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Martial arts, and Canada. Imcdc (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interviews and passing mentions in fighter profiles do not provide significant independent coverage of the organization itself. Quoting WP:NCORP: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." Papaursa (talk) 22:37, 14 June 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!} 06:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Lonchar[edit]

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

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO- notability of the Tesla Science Foundation organisation isn't inherited to the individual. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smart-looking smattering of lipstick on Peggy Sue, but it's still UPE and fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider salting. Complete self-promotional garbage. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unrelated person and definitely gives an impression of self-promotion considering personal website is in the links Боки ^{Talk page ↔️ Contributions} 05:29, 15 June 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 Germany at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Brülle[edit]

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

Prodded with the justification Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#Delete #1, as there are multiple valid targets, and as we cannot assume which one the reader is looking for the search function is more effective. Mentioned in "The Extinguished Flame: Olympians Killed in The Great War", but no WP:SIGCOV.

Prod removed with the edit summary de-PROD - not uncontroversial: needs full discussion. This was clarified on the talk page with I can indeed: because other editors may be able to find more refs, given the opportunity, and in the current heated climate around sports and Olympics topics it is better to avoid giving the impression of any attempt to delete anything "under the radar". Courtesy ping to Ingratis. BilledMammal (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing more can be found on him, then redirect to Germany at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Lugnuts. Not an Olympic medallist so not, as per WP:NOLYMPICS, individually notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough sourcing to justify an article and nothing that indicates this person was individually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 13 June 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!} 06:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SK Films (Shakib Khan Films)[edit]

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

non-notable film company. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Bangladesh. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and WP:CIR may apply, as the article's creator, who has been here longer than I have, actually created this twice. There's a duplicate article at SK Films ( Shakib Khan Films. I'd suspect they don't know how to move pages, if the one with the (more-)correctly formatted title wasn't half an hour older. Sumanuil. 07:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. A film company with no online reliable coverage. Aoyoigian (talk) 13:50, 11 June 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!} 06:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TrendSpider[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Undisclosed paid-for spam supported entirely by black hat SEO sources and press releases. Not notable. Not a good faith contribution to the encyclopedia, all major contributors have been blocked for sockpuppetry (not G5 eligible). Previous AFD was corrupted by UPE spammers. MER-C 06:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Software. MER-C 06:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Striking how many of the original AfD contributors have since been struck! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam/fluff promotional article. Feel sorry for people that pay to the have it deleted after creation.Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's amazing how many non notable sources you can produce if you try hard. PianoDan (talk) 16:03, 15 June 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 discussion confirms the policy at WP:NLIST, viz., that there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists. It does seem, however, that sufficient sourcing has been presented to favor the keeping of List of Jewish Nobel laureates, despite the challenges involved in unambiguously determining whether one is Jewish. If there is indeed enough sourcing to write a prose article on the relationship between Judaism and Nobel prizes, then the acceptability of a list article on the same subject follows closely behind. I do not mean to suggest that such a prose article should be written in addition to the present list, however. As for the other lists, they may be individually nominated for AFD's, at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Nobel laureates by religion[edit]

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

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

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

There might be something to be said about the very obviously systematically biased distribution of Nobel winners or something, but I don't see how this kind of listing of people by an unrelated characteristic (the religion of most of the winners has absolutely nothing to do with what they achieved) achieves anything encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a place for unencyclopedic case studies or for unencyclopedic cross-categorisations (such as, to almost exactly quote that, people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X who have won award Y). In addition, this being a compilation which I can't seem to find elsewhere (I can find some examples of generic stuff about Nobels and religion, but not much about particular religions), even in part, makes it textbook WP:OR (as something first being published on Wikipedia, which is supposed to reflect existing sources, is OR pretty much by definition).

In short, fails WP:NOT and WP:NOR.

Group nom since they all similarly fail WP:NOT (this applies even more to the non-religious group: we don't generally list things or people by characteristics they don't have...), and many seem to based on a single work by Baruch Shalev. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note many of these were deleted previously (in fact, I think, all of them, at some point). Could an admin check whether they meet WP:G4 with the deleted pages? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination) strikes surprisingly true even well over a decade later... I amend my nomination to delete and salt due to repeated recreation despite previous AfDs closing as delete. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:23, 19 May 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 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even the first two sentences of Jewish list gives a lot of sources (not all these sources are good, but they still exist). Sources say that the topic is valid, so why should it be deleted? There are a lot of strange lists on Wikipedia, these are not the worst ones. Artem.G (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
"A remarkable week for Jewish Nobelהש Prize winners". The Jewish Chronicle. October 10, 2013. Jews have won more than 20 per cent of the 850-plus prizes awarded, despite making up just 0.2 per cent of world's population. "One-of-five Nobel Prize Laureates are Jewish". Israel High-Tech & Investment Report. December 2004. Retrieved 2010-02-15. Brooks, David (January 11, 2010). "The Tel Aviv Cluster". The New York Times. p. A23. Jews are a famously accomplished group. They make up 0.2 percent of the world population, but 54 percent of the world chess champions, 27 percent of the Nobel physics laureates and 31 percent of the medicine laureates. Jews make up 2 percent of the U.S. population, but 21 percent of the Ivy League student bodies, 26 percent of the Kennedy Center honorees, 37 percent of the Academy Award-winning directors, 38 percent of those on a recent Business Week list of leading philanthropists, 51 percent of the Pulitzer Prize winners for nonfiction. Dobbs, Stephen Mark (October 12, 2001). "As the Nobel Prize marks centennial, Jews constitute 1/5 of laureates". j. Retrieved January 23, 2009. Throughout the 20th century, Jews, more so than any other minority, ethnic or cultural group, have been recipients of the Nobel Prize – perhaps the most distinguished award for human endeavor in the six fields for which it is given. Remarkably, Jews constitute almost one-fifth of all Nobel laureates. This, in a world in which Jews number just a fraction of 1 percent of the population. "28". Judaism for dummies. John Wiley & Sons. 2001. Similarly, because Jews make up less than a quarter of one percent of the world's population, it's surprising that over 20 percent of Nobel prizes have been awarded to Jews or people of Jewish descent. `((cite book))`: Cite uses deprecated parameter `\|authors=` (help) Lawrence E. Harrison (2008). The Central Liberal Truth: How Politics Can Change a Culture and Save It. Oxford University Press. p. 102. That achievement is symbolized by the fact that 15 to 20 percent of Nobel Prizes have been won by Jews, who represent two tenths of one percent of the world's population. The History of the Jewish People: Ancient Israel to 1880s America. Behrman House, Inc. 2006. p. 1. These accomplishments account for 20 percent of the Nobel Prizes awarded since 1901. What a feat for a people who make up only .2 percent of the world's population! `((cite book))`: Cite uses deprecated parameter `\|authors=` (help) Schuster, Ruth (2013-10-09). "Why do Jews win so many Nobels?". Retrieved 2018-03-17. "Why have Jews won Nobel Prizes disproportionately? - Prof. Robert Aumann (Nobel Prize Economist)". YouTube. 2017-04-17. Retrieved 2018-03-17. Pontz, Zach (2013-10-29). "Richard Dawkins Perplexed by High Number of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners". Algemeiner.com. Retrieved 2018-03-17. "Jews rank high among winners of Nobel, but why not Israelis", J. The Jewish News of Northern California, October 25, 2002. "There are three central theories given for Jewish academic achievement, according to Shulamit Volkov, professor of history at Tel Aviv University and author of "The Magic Circle: Germans, Jews and Anti-Semites." The first theory says that Jews are cleverer than others, a theory dismissed by Volkov and other serious academics. The second theory, proposed first by an American sociologist in 1919, holds that because Jews were on the margins of society they were forced to excel. The third and more common explanation, says Volkov, states that generations of Jewish Orthodox learning later translated brilliantly into secular learning." Noah Efron, "The Real Reason Why Jews Win So Many Nobel Prizes", Haaretz, October 21, 2013. Mark Mietkiewicz, "Nobel Prize and the Jews", Canadian Jewish News, December 10, 2018. Raphael Patai, The Jewish Mind, Wayne State University Press, 1996, pp. 339-371, 547-548.

Extended content

"A remarkable week for Jewish Nobelהש Prize winners". The Jewish Chronicle. October 10, 2013. Jews have won more than 20 per cent of the 850-plus prizes awarded, despite making up just 0.2 per cent of world's population.
"One-of-five Nobel Prize Laureates are Jewish". Israel High-Tech & Investment Report. December 2004. Retrieved 2010-02-15.
Brooks, David (January 11, 2010). "The Tel Aviv Cluster". The New York Times. p. A23. Jews are a famously accomplished group. They make up 0.2 percent of the world population, but 54 percent of the world chess champions, 27 percent of the Nobel physics laureates and 31 percent of the medicine laureates. Jews make up 2 percent of the U.S. population, but 21 percent of the Ivy League student bodies, 26 percent of the Kennedy Center honorees, 37 percent of the Academy Award-winning directors, 38 percent of those on a recent Business Week list of leading philanthropists, 51 percent of the Pulitzer Prize winners for nonfiction.
Dobbs, Stephen Mark (October 12, 2001). "As the Nobel Prize marks centennial, Jews constitute 1/5 of laureates". j. Retrieved January 23, 2009. Throughout the 20th century, Jews, more so than any other minority, ethnic or cultural group, have been recipients of the Nobel Prize – perhaps the most distinguished award for human endeavor in the six fields for which it is given. Remarkably, Jews constitute almost one-fifth of all Nobel laureates. This, in a world in which Jews number just a fraction of 1 percent of the population.
"28". Judaism for dummies. John Wiley & Sons. 2001. Similarly, because Jews make up less than a quarter of one percent of the world's population, it's surprising that over 20 percent of Nobel prizes have been awarded to Jews or people of Jewish descent. ((cite book)): Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
Lawrence E. Harrison (2008). The Central Liberal Truth: How Politics Can Change a Culture and Save It. Oxford University Press. p. 102. That achievement is symbolized by the fact that 15 to 20 percent of Nobel Prizes have been won by Jews, who represent two tenths of one percent of the world's population.
The History of the Jewish People: Ancient Israel to 1880s America. Behrman House, Inc. 2006. p. 1. These accomplishments account for 20 percent of the Nobel Prizes awarded since 1901. What a feat for a people who make up only .2 percent of the world's population! ((cite book)): Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
Schuster, Ruth (2013-10-09). "Why do Jews win so many Nobels?". Retrieved 2018-03-17.
"Why have Jews won Nobel Prizes disproportionately? - Prof. Robert Aumann (Nobel Prize Economist)". YouTube. 2017-04-17. Retrieved 2018-03-17.
Pontz, Zach (2013-10-29). "Richard Dawkins Perplexed by High Number of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners". Algemeiner.com. Retrieved 2018-03-17.
"Jews rank high among winners of Nobel, but why not Israelis", J. The Jewish News of Northern California, October 25, 2002. "There are three central theories given for Jewish academic achievement, according to Shulamit Volkov, professor of history at Tel Aviv University and author of "The Magic Circle: Germans, Jews and Anti-Semites." The first theory says that Jews are cleverer than others, a theory dismissed by Volkov and other serious academics. The second theory, proposed first by an American sociologist in 1919, holds that because Jews were on the margins of society they were forced to excel. The third and more common explanation, says Volkov, states that generations of Jewish Orthodox learning later translated brilliantly into secular learning."
Noah Efron, "The Real Reason Why Jews Win So Many Nobel Prizes", Haaretz, October 21, 2013.
Mark Mietkiewicz, "Nobel Prize and the Jews", Canadian Jewish News, December 10, 2018.
Raphael Patai, The Jewish Mind, Wayne State University Press, 1996, pp. 339-371, 547-548.

Still fails WP:NOT. Those sources might be useful to say something about the systematic bias (or the somehow otherwise biased distribution) of Nobel prizes, but they do not themselves support a listing like this (many of them barely name an example or two). Your comment doesn't address how this is also exactly the same issue with all the others, minus the additional lack of sources on those. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't help that many of the sources above are opinion pieces, youtube videos, or even dead links which I can't verify... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic bias of Nobel prizes might be a valid topic (ex. [19]; [20]; [21]), but that doesn't mean a list of people by an otherwise unrelated characteristic (such as the ethnic / cultural / religious group from WP:NOT) is a valid encyclopedic entry. We don't have List of African-American members of the United States House of Representatives, even if Racism in the United States is a very valid topic). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, there is List of African-American United States representatives. Reywas92^Talk 17:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, nevermind. That article still doesn't seem to be much better than this, either. The only sources which directly address the topic (as opposed to being there for some other factual biographical aspect) are a short paragraph on the US house website and a Huffpost article which is actually about the Senate and not the House... Coverage of individual members =/= NLIST. But that doesn't address the fact that, unlike even racism in the United States (which is a culturally significant phenomenon, and might yet not quite be up to par for a list here), "Nobel prizes and religion" is not a culturally significant phenomenon however you spin it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While not directly used as citations, further reading sources and ELs including America's Black Congressmen, Just Permanent Interests: Black Americans in Congress, 1870–1991, and African Americans In Congress: A Documentary History make that unambiguously notable for NLIST, and the tag was unwarranted. I don't yet have an opinion on the lists at hand. Reywas92^Talk 19:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. It is true that Jews are overrepresented, but that could be added to Nobel Prize. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of Muslim Nobel laureates Otherwise featured articles like List of Indian Nobel laureates risk being deleted (12 entries); List of Muslim Nobel laureates has 13 entries. For List of Jewish Nobel laureates, I am neutral – I don't know what fate would befall List of Israeli Nobel laureates, List of Russian Nobel laureates or List of Hungarian Nobel laureates. I'm not sure WP:OTHERSTUFF always applies. List of Nobel Laureates by country is long but interesting; it's nice to see the separate Italian list for Marconi, Pirandello and Fermi. Mathsci (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So "keep because I don't want other lists like this to be deleted"? How unconvincing. If the other stuff doesn't have the same problems, it won't get deleted. If it does have the same problems, then it should also be deleted, too bad. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I wrote or implied. I mentioned two lists List of Muslim Nobel Laureates and List of Indian Nobel laureates, with a handful of comparable entries, notably Ramachandran and Salam. I cannot materially see any difference between these lists; the idea of statistics for such a small but extraordinary sample does not make any sense. The Prod for List of Arab Nobel laureates is similar. I did also notice this and this, with Generalrelative's "important notice", which gave me pause for thought. Mathsci (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise featured articles like List of Indian Nobel laureates risk being deleted is pretty much "keep because I don't want other lists like this to be deleted". The sample being "extraordinary" does not mean that every possible factual intersection about it belongs on Wikipedia. We don't have List of US Presidents by birthday or List of British monarchs by age at accession or List of Oscar winners by religion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of female Nobel laureates is a wp:featured article which has now been listed for deletion. It is properly cited and has gone through the usual WP:FAC process here. Mathsci (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to note that religion does play a direct role in the activities of some Nobel Prizes such as the Peace prizes for example. American Friends Service Committee (Quaker Organization), Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, are a few examples. World leaders like Barack Obama have expressed influence from their religious convictions on activities that contributed to winning a prize.65.223.10.226 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to add to nom, who has stated it very clearly; this is a prime example of unencyclopedic cross-categorisation. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We usually ignore the fact that the Nobel Prize is not about science categories only, and that the religion of many Nobel Prize winners has a lot to do with what they achieved. For example, many Nobel Peace Prize winners state that their achievements and their activities were influenced in some way by their religion, such as Nathan Söderblom, Emily Greene Balch, John Mott, Albert Schweitzer, Dominique Pire, Albert Luthuli, Desmond Tutu, Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, Jimmy Carter, Leymah Gbowee, Denis Mukwege, and others. In the literature category some laureates were strongly influenced by religion, and religious themes can be seen in their works, such as Selma Lagerlöf, Sigrid Undset, T. S. Eliot, Czesław Miłosz, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Bob Dylan, and others. Even certain science laureates have been strongly influenced by religion, and use science to support their perspectives about religion and science, such as Richard Smalley, William Daniel Phillips, Peter Grünberg, Gerhard Ertl, Arthur Compton, Robert Andrews Millikan, and others. I find it interesting that only these kinds of list are nominated for deletion, by claiming that "the religion of most of the winners has absolutely nothing to do with what they achieved", while with lists about countries (such as List of Nobel laureates by country), or ethnicity (such as the List of Arab Nobel laureates, List of black Nobel laureates, and List of Latin American Nobel laureates), or gender (List of female Nobel laureates)--no one gets bothered. By analyzing some laureates it's clear religion of the winners has a lot to do with what they achieved more than nationality, ethnicity or gender, yet these are the only kind of lists that are nominated for deletion. desmay (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Other shit exists", is not a convincing argument in the slightest. I probably should (will/already have in some cases) nominate most of those others too. If, as you claim, "some Nobel laureates were strongly influenced by religion", you should find sources which confirm this (per WP:V and WP:NRVE) and show how the specific link between Nobels and religion is a culturally significant phenomenon worthy of an encyclopedic entry (and then there are plenty of things which are worthy of encyclopedic topics which don't need lists about it); as opposed to the more generic Relationship between science and religion or the hypothetical but probably article worthy Systematic bias of Nobel Prizes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find this article very useful. It is a valuable index within this encyclopedia concerning Nobel laureates. WP:NOT criteria defend against bureaucratic and censorship motivated article policing and the removal of this article would give grounds for suspicion of such grounds being used. The summarisation of the external research covered, describing the motivation and human character formation factors resulting in the exceptional work honoured by the award of these prizes is of wider interest. If this article is removed from Wikipedia its content of interest is unlikely to be so easily findable elsewhere. The article could perhaps be strengthened if it indexes in addition other human character relevant research e.g. including nationality, migration status, organisational affiliations etc, making this article about more than just the faith position of Nobel laureates. --Copsewood (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT are non-arguments to begin with. List of Nobel laureates already exists. Other "relevant human character[istics]" would probably also fall under WP:NOT unless you can show that those are more than trivial intersections (organisational affiliation has already been discussed elsewhere; migration status seems trivial, ...). If the "content is unlikely to be findable elsewhere", that seems a good argument that this is actually WP:OR and therefore shouldn't be included to begin with. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The removal request fails on WP:OR in the sense this article summarises research it references available elsewhere offline in book form. Removal of this list would make the original research harder to find, and summarisation of it much more time consuming. Achieving such ends is not a valid motivation for article removal. Migration and multilingual status are non trivial to the extent internationalisation of perspective contributes towards the intellectual achievement a Nobel Prize represents. Copsewood (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely keep these pages, in an age and time when modern science is suggesting that the brain is the most challenging frontier yet to be understood by science we must consider any data that relates to the mechanisms of great thinkers. We can now understand how synaptic systems form we use terms like engram and ensemble and we discuss network formation. However we do not understand cognition and the way that the brain formats things such as thoughts and ideas.

To suggest that we should not consider what religion our great thinkers engaged in is very frightening censorship. Religion is a topic that almost all great thinkers at some point engage in so how can we ignore this valuable data as we hope to understand the science of the brain and contributions of great humans over time.

Wikipedia is not the place for political or religious censorship and that is exactly what this would be. This information is not harmful, illegal or dangerous. Censorship can be. I could understand if this data was somehow an effort to convey how to build WMD's, harm life in any form or basically inaccurate or unimportant. This data is none of these things. Please do not turn Wikipedia into a political forum where activists attempt to suppress free speech and open sharing of non-harmful data. 2601:603:167E:2D0:41CE:DCCF:4D37:81D6 (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incoherent rambling that has nothing to do with notability standards. Do try harder. Dronebogus (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— 2601:603:167E:2D0:41CE:DCCF:4D37:81D6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A textbook example of WP:ITSIMPORTANT; and a non-sequitur on top: the pages being about religion does not mean an attempt to delete them is "religious censorship" (and even if it were, that would not be a valid reason to keep them). Otherwise utter nonsense: using such exaggerated language in an attempt at a rhetorical coup de force falls flat on its face without reference to reliable sources (upon which Wikipedia should be based on) or other more convincing arguments. Claiming that these pages somehow provide any insight into "the mechanisms of great thinkers" (despite the absolute lack of substantial prose) similarly goes against all existing evidence. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete meaningless trivial intersection of unrelated things; keep votes are mostly inexperienced users review bombing with non-arguments like WP:ITSIMPORTANT or WP:ILIKEIT. Dronebogus (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion would benefit from a policy related input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The religion of Nobel Prize winners has been covered by good sources; sociologist and professor Harriet Zuckerman discusses the religion of American Nobel Prize winners in her work, Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. The same figures and topic have been covered by Professor Gregory J. Feist in The Psychology of Science and the Origins of the Scientific Mind; the sociologist and professor Gerhard Lenski, in The Religious Factor, discusses why Protestants and Jews are overrepresented in being recipients of the Nobel Prize (or being scientists in general) versus other religious groups, or inside the Protestant world, why some denominations (such as Episcopalian or other mainline groups) are overrepresented in these fields versus other Protestant denominations (such as Baptist). This topic has also been covered by social psychologists Michael Argyle and Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi in their work The Psychology of Religious Behaviour, Belief and Experience, where according to them the structure of sects and religions (such as their religious behavior) plays a role in the overrepresentation of scholars (incl. Nobel Prize winners) among them, or vice versa. It's not hard to find good sources that have covered why a specific religious group is overrepresented among Nobel Prize winners. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give precise pages (a basic courtesy) and more complete bibliographies so people who don't have the books can take a look via GBooks or another ressource to confirm whether these sources really have significant coverage about the subject (and whether it is more than passing speculation)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, for the reasons given by the nominator. In addition, how far can the listings be trusted? Consider Christian B. Anfinsen, claimed to be Jewish, but there is nothing in his article to confirm that, and I wonder how common it is for devout Jewish parents to name a son Christian. Or take John Polanyi: his father converted from Jewish to Roman Catholic, but I know of no evidence that John Polanyi considered himself to be Jewish. Athel cb (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the Christian B. Anfinsen article, there is an NIH autobiographical profile cited in the article [22] where he discusses his conversion to orthodox Judaism, and John Polanyi is listed in e.g. the Jewish Virtual Library (cited to Encyclopaedia Judaica, Gale). But more specifically, while page numbers are not available in this GBooks version of Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States, when I used the 'Search Inside' function to search for the term 'religion', there is a snippet that includes, "It should be understood, however, that the overrepresentation of Jews among American Nobel laureates tells us nothing about the extent to which their religious origins may have facilitated or hampered their achievement of scientific...". This work is cited briefly for data in The Psychology of Science and the Origins of the Scientific Mind and an unrelated conclusion about work after winning the Nobel prize at p. 22-23 (click on the snippet to access the full pages), which at p. 74, also states, "Religious background, however, does not tease apart variability due to religious orientation, culture, race, or even genetic influence. Moreover, we must make clear that these data refer to the religious faith of one's family background and upbringing, not one's current behavior. Scientists in general, and eminent scientists in particular, are conspicuous in their rejection of organized religion." In the snippets I can view on GBooks for The Psychology of Religious Behaviour, Belief and Experience, (after searching inside for "Nobel") at p. 178 I see a mention of a study noting "a remarkable degree of irreligiousity, as compared to the populations they came from." It seems it is difficult to find reliable sources to support more than an article about this complex topic generally, while sources for more clearly definable and notable parameters related to the Nobel Prize specifically (such as gender and geography) appear to be abundant, e.g. Al Jazeera, 2021. Beccaynr (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These lists have general encyclopedic value. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“It’s encyclopedic” isn’t an argument. Dronebogus (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are mostly well sourced and have encyclopedic value. In fact all of these lists: by nationality, religion, sex are of obvious encyclopedic value. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 09:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If people bother to make detailed and well reasoned arguments why something is not encyclopedic (and making reference to established community policies, which override WP:LOCALCONSENSUS); and then people still can't be bothered to offer anything but "I feel this is obviously important"; you'll excuse me for being utterly unconvinced. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if these lists must be kept, could we just merge them into one article about laureates by religion and not “list of Christians, list of religious Jews, list of Muslims, list of Atheists, list of Zoroastrians, list of Jedis…” Dronebogus (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per reasonable reasons given by nom. I would salt these and also lists of Hindu and Humanist laureates. --mikeu ^talk 22:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NLIST, a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. It's quite clear that the various religious groups of Nobel prize winners have each been discussed as a group or set by multiple independent reliable sources. The nominator's argument that this violates WP:NOT is less-than-persuasive; it's more or less a bare assertion that the religion of people like Mother Theresa is so unimportant in their winning of the prize that this information should be deleted. This is, of course, absurd—patently so all of the clergy who have won Nobel prizes—and it is equally absurd to frame this as purely unencyclopedic cross-categorization. With respect to the WP:OR argument, there are reliable sources that give explicit lists for Jewish winners, Jews and Muslims, so the argument that the topic is WP:OR is wholly refuted with respect to those two articles. Any WP:OR issues present in those, therefore, could be dealt with through ordinary editing. And, as WP:DEL-CONTENT notes, [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would make the argument that this isn't OR look less silly if the list's criteria of inclusion where the same as that of sources. Yet they're all different ([23], for example, does not include Richard Thaler; Oliver Hart; or a fair few others. Given how "Jewish" is both an ethnicity and a religion, that definitively puts a dent in saying this is some "sky is blue" stuff which everybody agrees on (hint: they don't; and the lists are inevitably choosing a particular methodology which might as well be OR)

a bare assertion that the religion of people like Mother Theresa is so unimportant in their winning of the prize that this information should be deleted. a textbook strawman. The religion of individual winners being important for individual winners does not mean that a list of all winners by religion, even in cases when this is entirely irrelevant, is encyclopedically appropriate. We don't accept even categories of people who share a trivial trait where it is not otherwise relevant to their encyclopedic notability (WP:OCEGRS). For actual articles or lists in article-space, the standard is much higher - yet, except for some discussion about how Jewish winners are overrepresented, no credible source makes any mention of any link between "being Jewish" (or "being Muslim" or "being Christian") and "winning Nobel prizes". This is why this does fail WP:NOT, since the intersection is a statistical oddity, not a "culturally significant phenomenon". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And, at best, this might maybe warrant a carve-out for the Jewish list (given it does seem to be the only one which is occasionally covered in sources). The others even more obviously fail WP:NOT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Religion is a quite significant in the motivation of some of the winners for the literature and peace prizes (for example: Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa), possibly even economics. Also there are many publications which mention "Jewish Nobel Prize winners" in Google books alone [24]; it passes WP:LISTN.Orientls (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all A valuable reference. OBender12 (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ALL Many of the Nobel Laureates, especially the Peace Prize, are motivated by their religion. Others, such as the over-representation of Jews, are culturally or ethnically motivated. Many Laureates in Literature have used religious or cultural themes in their artistic expression, particularly from their own backgrounds. Therefore, these lists serve an encyclopedic purpose, namely to provide useful categories of information. Wigly Pigly (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the Nobel Laureates, especially the Peace Prize, are motivated by their religion. Individual persons being motivated by religion does not mean the whole group (including those for whom their religion did not have any impact on the Nobel achievement) is suitable. provide useful categories of information Lists are not categories. We expect some minimum amount of coverage from which to write a summary of knowledge (which is what an encyclopedia is). Except maybe for the Jewish list, there isn't remotely the necessary amount of coverage to justify these. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this AfD is a mess. How many keep votes are from actual, experienced, active users and how many are drivebys/SPAs/minimally active/undead accounts? I’d recommend the closing admin inspect the rationales closely to avoid a WP:NOTDEMOCRACY disaster. Dronebogus (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Somewhat surprised at the number of "I like it" !votes from users with thousands of edits who should really know to base their arguments in policy. I think RandomCanadian's interpretation here is spot-on; fundamentally this is turning an incidental element of a person and tying it to a personal accomplishment in a way that's not supported by sources. I went looking at the books suggested by 1990'sguy and I disagree that they demonstrate that it's a serious subject of academic study, versus just a side study of correlative factors. This is a WP:NOTDIRECTORY issue with a topic that doesn't demonstrate it meets WP:NLIST. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep All Bad nomination grouping these together. There's discussion as early as 1923 listing Jewish winners.^[1]^[2]^[3]

References

^ Harrow, Benjamin (1923). "JEWS WHO HAVE RECEIVED THE NOBEL PRIZE". The American Jewish Year Book. 25: 195–203. ISSN 0065-8987.
^ Zhang, Weijia; Fuller, Robert G (May 1998). "Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990: simple statistics for physics teachers". Physics Education. 33 (3): 196–203. doi:10.1088/0031-9120/33/3/023.
^ Rice, Karen B. (1993). Review of The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia. 7th ed. pp. 437–438. Also included is a list of Jewish winners of the Nobel prize. ((cite book)): |journal= ignored (help)

FWIW Judaism is the religion; being Jewish doesn't make one religious. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RandomCanadian wrote: no credible source makes any mention of any link between "being Jewish" (or "being Muslim" or "being Christian") and "winning Nobel prizes".... nope, you're wrong.^[1]

References

^ Hollinger, David A. (2002). "Why Are Jews Preeminent in Science and Scholarship? The Veblen Thesis Reconsidered". Aleph (2): 145–163. ISSN 1565-1525. Three of the four very top Bolsheviks, after all, were Kamenev, Trotsky, and Zinoviev- three Jews who stood with Lenin in 1917. Then there were Radek, Sokolnikov, Sverdlov, and Uritskii. We need a non-Red-baiting mode to confront the pre eminence of Jews in Bolshevism, just as we need a non-antisemitic mode to confront the high percentage of billionaires who are Jews, and a non-ethnically chauvinistic mode to confront the over-representation of Jews among Nobel laureates. We need to find a way out of the booster-bigot trap, which quickly channels discussions of Jews in comparison to other groups into the booster's uncritical celebration of Jewish achievements or the bigot's malevolent complaint about Jewish conspiracies. The whole issue of the role of Diaspora Jews in world history needs to be demystified.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting myself, We expect some minimum amount of coverage from which to write a summary of knowledge (which is what an encyclopedia is). Except maybe for the Jewish list, there isn't remotely the necessary amount of coverage to justify these This still doesn't address any of the other groupings; hence is not a reason to keep all of them. Grouping very similar lists by what appeared like the same kind of criteria (i.e. intersection of "religion" and "Nobel laureates") is perfectly procedurally valid. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misnamed, conflating Judaism with Jewish, easily identifiable reliable sourcing which demonstrates the notability of the list. To repeat: it's a bad nomination; it should be withdrawn and separated out. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all As per Elmidae. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a very broad range of academic literature which examines the intersection between Nobel winners and X (choose your category). It's hardly surprising given that 20% of Nobel winners are Jewish there would be work examining that. I find many of the arguments being used for delete here are grand generalisations, ignoring the vast literature which examines why and who wins nobel prizes. Yes, List of green-eyed winners of the Ramon Magsaysay Award would fall afoul of our policies or guidelines; but I genuinely struggle to understand how the Jewish winners list made it here: firstly, the mistaken conflation with Judaism, and secondly, the simplest of checking reveals it to be a clearly notable topic of discussion with abundant sourcing available. So, I propose that this nomination be withdrawn, that list of Jewish winners not be renominated and the other three be nominated separately. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as a perfect example of a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization and trivia compiled through WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Marginally compelling arguments have been presented about keeping the Jewish list but the sourcing is still incredibly weak and can be easily covered on other pages so should be deleted too. Other arguments to keep are similarly weak and come down to WP:ILIKEIT so I hope these are discounted by the closer. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" except there's an encyclopedia entry with a list of Jewish winners ... this is "marginally compelling"? How is an encyclopedia entry OR or SYNTH? We can generally agree on where the "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" line begins (List of Japanese restaurants in Bamako), but the core of the problem is that there is no generalised consensus on where it ends and acceptable encyclopedic cross-categorizations begins (ie what is a "culturally significant phenomenon"). I struggle to see any justification for the blanket "delete all" !votes in the face of reliable sourcing. There's a procedural problem with the nomination, it's been demonstrated. The qualified comments from the delete !votes essentially acknowledging that the list of Jewish winners is different only reinforces this. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsider?. I have been asked on my talk page to reconsider my Delete all opinion, especially in relation to the Jewish listing. OK, I may have been poorly informed on the Jewish aspect, but my view is more general than that: I think all of these lists should go. Basically I agree with what Vladimir.copic says immediately above. Athel cb (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further opportunity to achieve a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because from where we are, it's the simplest thing to do. I'll explain: the intersection of religion and winning-the-Nobel-prize has clearly been written about (especially but not exclusively in relation to Judaism) and in some of the specific disciplines covered by the Nobel prize, the relationship between that discipline (e.g. the science) and religion is widely written-about (and since the Nobel prizes and their winners are the pinnacle of scientific success, it follows that the relationship between science and religion automatically overlaps with the relationship between being a Nobel prize winner and being a scientist). So the subject exists, is sourced, and deserves an article. I would have felt better if someone had written it in the form of an article. But instead, it's in the form of a list. Now even as a list, it has value: it is quite likely that our readers will be interested in the sorts of people of the Jewish faith who've won these prizes, and what they did, so it's a directory for them. But if we're to treat it as a directory-list rather than a subject-article, then there is no justification in keeping one list (Jewish winners) and deleting another (Moslem winners). So we must either delete the lot and instead write an article, which I'm not volunteering to do, or we keep the lot. Further, if anyone were to write an article on the interaction of the Jewish faith and Nobel prize-winning, then they'd undoubtedly add a list of Jewish winners, which would become too large for the article, and need to be farmed out into exactly the sort of list we're contemplating deleting. Basically, keep is the only long-term stable solution. Elemimele (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the relationship between that discipline (e.g. the science) and religion is widely written-about Science and religion already exists and does just fine without a list ("List of scientists by religion") to accompany it. it follows that the relationship between science and religion automatically overlaps with the relationship between being a Nobel prize winner and being a scientist Whether this is a correct generalisation, or not, I won't judge, but if it overlaps with the relationship between science and religion, why not just cover it on the existing page; and then maybe split out a Nobel laureates and religion once there is an actual, encyclopedic article about it? Further, if anyone were to write an article on the interaction of the Jewish faith and Nobel prize-winning, then they'd undoubtedly add a list of Jewish winners; in which case WP:WTAF is practical advice. If sources have written about only one of the possible intersections, it's not our job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and also make lists about the others. We don't keep indiscriminate lists because someone might, one day, write a proper encyclopedic article about the subject. it is quite likely that our readers will be interested WP:ITSINTERESTING - unless there are sources which are as interested in it as our hypothetical readers, we'd be doing a disservice to those interested readers by having articles on them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and salt, essentially per WP:TNT, and per Elemimele, Vladimir.copic, the scholarly commentary I noted above, and David Fuchs. This subject appears to be too complex to be rendered as lists, and the encyclopedic way to present it seems to be a prose article, e.g. Nobel laureates and religion, to avoid the kind of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that appears required to construct these lists (which is why I suggest salting the titles). Beccaynr (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources discuss the religion of Nobel laureates 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. WP:PROVEIT 2. That does not justify a list, it justifies an article. 9 times out of 10 lists are bad because they’re WP:NOTINFO without knowledge Dronebogus (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The discussion above makes pretty clear that these lists inevitably represent the drawing of new conclusions from published data points. Writing an article instead of building a list may be harder, but it's the right thing to do. XOR'easter (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – per nom and David Fuchs, although I'm not surprised this one is so contentious. Needs to be a much more compelling connection between winning a Nobel Prize and adhering to a certain faith to warrant an article like this. Ovinus (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further sourcing. "Alphabetical List of the Jewish Nobel Prize Winners (1905-1959)",^[1] "Includes 150 lists on such topics as ... Jewish Nobel Prize Winners", ^[2] "the sheer number of recipients of the Nobel Prize for Literature... more than a dozen, including ... " (list follows)^[3]

References

^ Levitan, Tina (1960). The Laureates: Jewish Winners of the Nobel Prize. Twayne Publishers. p. 214.
^ Landau, Ron (1982). The Book of Jewish Lists. Stein and Day. ISBN 978-0-8128-2839-9.
^ Stavans, Ilan (2021). Jewish literature : a very short introduction. New York, NY. p. 2. ISBN 9780190076993.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

That's five different texts cited in this discussion that specifically contain lists of Jewish winners of the Nobel Prize. I see no basis by which claims that the Jewish list of winners is non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation or SYNTH/OR can be maintaiend. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn’t justify a list Dronebogus (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at those sources? They all discuss Jewish Nobel laureates as a category, and The Book of Jewish Lists presumably does so in list-format. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn and I have had an extended discussion at my Talk page about these issues, and from my view, as a tl;dr version, WP:LISTN tells us There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y"), so a focus on the quality of the sources seems important, and I think the scholarly sources identified in this discussion support the development of a prose article only, due to the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that otherwise appears necessary to develop standalone lists. Beccaynr (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now had a good look at the sources presented and agree that the sources only lend support to a prose article or a section with in another article. With a couple of exceptions, sources mainly give a passing mention about number of Jewish people winning the Nobel as a titbit or interesting fact. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLIST "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." The discussion around cross-categorisation is utterly misplaced. Jewish Nobel prize winners is a grouping which has reliable sourcing. It's axiomatic and perfectly within policy. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in our ongoing discussion on my Talk page, from my view, when we look at the scholarly sources discussing the grouping or set generally, i.e. the ones I highlight in my first comment in the discussion, these sources tell us that the connections are more complex than a straightforward list. I also think we have some WP:NPOV issues if we attempt to develop a list, as the Who is a Jew? article helps emphasize, as well as the non-RS sources that have not been cited in the discussion but are at the top of some online search results and reflect the polarity identified by Hollinger (2002). Based on core policies, it appears that this material should be developed as a prose article that can articulate the nuances of the subject matter as expressed by reliable scholarly sources. List inclusion criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, and the scholarly sources in particular seem to show that we do not have unambiguous criteria available, and the WP:OR/WP:NPOV concerns I have expressed apply to what appears to be a lack of objective standards for list inclusion as well as whether lists should exist despite scholarly sources telling us there is no reliable basis for making these connections, even if we can identify clear inclusion criteria. Beccaynr (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems with this: (1) the scholarly, generalised discussion cited above about is about religion, not identity (2) complexifying the issue through generalisation rather than the specific instance at hand. Who is on the list is a content dispute to be resolved through analysis of sourcing, this does not invalidate the list. I disagree with the interpretation of Hollinger, it's not a caution against discussion of Jewish Nobel winners, but rather it's about the uses of that information (although more specifically it's a rejection of a particular thesis on Jewish achievement). When there's more than 100 winners, all of whom are notable in their own right, it's completely sensible that there would be a list. No reason why the absence of one (article) should preclude the other (the list). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too many "other stuff exists" votes here. Taking existing statistics and repackaging them into a list doesn't appear to be a valid reason for this article to remain. I assume a category will be enough to direct readers to where they need to go. doktorb _words^deeds 06:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Goldzstain. In many parts of the world, religion is an important identifier (just like nationality is in the West). There is no logical reason why these articles should be deleted when we have list of Nobel laureates by country. We shouldnt be overlooking the fact that the Eastern world considers religion to be an important demographic marker. CharlesWain (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSIMPORTANT. In many parts of the world politics is an important demographic, and so is Caste, or a billion other weird identifiers that don’t honestly matter. However, almost everyone has a nationality and considers it important. Dronebogus (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus I wouldn't be so quick to joke about List of Nobel laureates by caste. Someone might use these sources to justify another listicle: [25] [26] [27] [28]... Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn’t matter, I’ll still fight it. Dronebogus (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jewish & Weak keep Muslim on basis of NLIST:

"Islam and the Nobel Prize". Oxford University Press Blog. Oxford University Press. January 20, 2009.
Jones, Nelson (August 9, 2013). "Why do so many Nobel laureates look like Richard Dawkins?". New Statesman.
Sakula, A. (1989). "Jewish Nobel Prize-winners in medicine and physiology". Korot. 9 (9–10): 684–699. PMID 11613893.
Taylor, Dereck (2019). Jewish Nobel Prize Winners. Vallentine Mitchell. ISBN 9781910383896.

I should also like to note that quite a few op-eds discuss this issue ([29]). Some might be WP:RSOPINION, but, I guess that doesn't really fulfill NLIST. Ya'll know I'm not one for CRUFTY lists, but I do think there might actually be some meat to these topics. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More: 6 Jewish women who won the Nobel Prize, Museum of the Jewish People, Tel Aviv University, 8 March 2017. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many good arguments that seem irreconciliable. I see this one as "No consensus". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per the cogent policy based argument made by Ⓜ️hawk10.4meter4 (talk) 03:46, 19 June 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 06:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mövenpick Ambassador Hotel Accra[edit]

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

Prod removed. Fails the WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING. WP:BEFORE turns up plethora of sourcing mentioning events at the hotel but nothing which provides SIGCOV establishing notability of the hotel in and of itself. The previous (demolished) building at the location might be noteworthy, but that is a different structure. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Ghana, France, and Switzerland. Goldsztajn (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it possibly passes my standards for hotels. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So that's an IAR !vote, is it? :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep on the grounds that the history of the establishment of the hotel is so unique as compared to the typical account of the establishment of a hotel. BD2412 T 05:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different structure and, if deemed notable, could easily be included in any article related to Ghana's independence or relations with the UK. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Then this should be an article on the original and successor hotels. BD2412 T 01:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Given the unusual history of it's establishment in the context of a major event of the history of Ghana, I am leaning keep.4meter4 (talk) 03:42, 19 June 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!} 05:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Adewunmi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, all sources are trivial and lack WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify.--MonFrontieres (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Grenada-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with my colleagues above. This does not have any reliable secondary sources and does not pass WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 01:16, 17 June 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!} 04:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haleigh Mana'o[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, all sources are trivial and lack WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage (besides passing mentions re: playing golf in high school and quote on Oceania Football Federation web site); pales in comparison to her cousin and football teammate / captain Alma Mana'o. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:22, 14 June 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Playfair[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Dylan Playfair

Actor whose articles have been deleted twice and still does not satisfy general notability. Only one of the references is significant coverage. One appears to be an interview, and two of them are database entries about his brothers, but notability is not inherited.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.thestar.com	Toronto Star story about roles	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
2	theathletic.com	Paywalled, but appears to be an interview	No	Probably	Yes	No
3	eliteprospects.com	About one brother's hockey career	Yes	No	Yes	No
4	eliteprospects.com	About another brother's hockey career	Yes	No	Yes	No

This article does not indicate any new achievements in the past two years since the last AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Playfair (2nd nomination). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Ice hockey, and British Columbia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete and salt:~~ Didn't meet the GNG the first time around. Didn't meet the GNG the second time around. Doesn't meet the GNG now. Never has met NACTOR. Time to salt this sucker so we don't have to keep doing this. Ravenswing 04:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Still not sold on the fellow's notability, but there are enough articles that I can't really in good faith maintain a deletion stance. Ravenswing 14:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some other sources: The Sporting News (a partial interview) [30], story on nhl.com [31], Calgary Herald [32], the Prince George Citizen [33], the Gate [34], the North Shore News [35]. A Vancouver Sun article from 2016 [36]. I'm sure we have notability, he's mentioned in pages after pages on Gnews, sustained coverage for over 5 yrs and multiple interviews. He's in the Mighty Ducks tv series, Letterkenney and was in Descendents 2 and 3, Disney movies. Multiple roles as an actor. Oaktree b (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b agree with this user. the sources provided in the article are quite decent and fullfiling 化の (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure if I should weigh in since I made this version of the page. I did it without knowing it had been made two other times in in 2020 and 2017. While that may show a lack of research on my part, doesn't it in some way show public interest in the subject? Regarding Playfair meeting notability, is there a difference between notability guidelines depending on country? Canada has a very small TV and Film scene, so it's very hard for actors to "break through" as they say. I will keep editing the page in the coming days to add sources and information. I look forward to seeing further discussion on this page! Oangie (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I think the key metric here is WP:NACTOR. On the WP:BASIC test, it looks to be borderline. But does the subject have multiple "significant" roles? I don't think the Descendants films role is "significant". So then it comes down to Letterkenney and Some Assembly Required. I am skeptical that the subject meets NACTOR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's also in the Mighty Ducks TV show Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be multiple, significant roles. Appearing in just a third of the episodes, being fourteenth down in the cast list, and not being so much as listed on the show's official website does not strike me as a "significant" role. Ravenswing 14:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's been in 7/10 of the episodes. Was a season regular/recurring but not main cast. Season 2 isn't out yet, if you basing 1/3 out of 20. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recurring roles are generally not considered "significant", esp. as sometimes even so-called "main cast" roles are not all that significant. So I would say Mighty Ducks does not contribute to the WP:NACTOR test. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was just clarifying the episodes as it was more than 1/3. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. Those eps have been filmed, and Playfair does not appear in them. Ravenswing 22:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your word for it. Regardless it goes both ways, I don't look at future episodes seasons when considering how many episodes someone has done so I don't look in the future for what hasn't been done. Hadn't seen news that it finished filming so wouldn't have even thought to do that anyways. Recurring regular in season 1, was my main point nothing more. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, he's also a secondary character in Letterkenney, he's been in 63 episodes or so but is not the lead. I'd say his role is slightly above what he's done in Descendants, top tier secondary if that makes sense. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He at least passes GNG, he's got a few dozen pages of results in Gnews, interview after interview. The four or five articles I mentioned, he's mentioned in the Sporting News, on the NHL website and about a dozen Canadian newspapers. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC is probably a higher benchmark than WP:GNG – the qualifications need to be higher for a WP:BLP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have multiple independent sources, in addition to the Toronto Star article, I'm sure BASIC has been met. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . The sources provided by Oaktree are convincing enough that the subject passes GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agree with both of you @Flibirigit @Oaktree b 化の (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . besides meeting WP:GNG with the new sources, he may also meet WP:NACTOR as he appeared in over 50 episodes in two different TV shows, having a Wiki page, showing they are notable TV shows.Lovewiki106 (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER as a main cast member in two different television programs and roles in multiple films.4meter4 (talk) 03:38, 19 June 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SL93 (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Altamonte Springs Boom[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable baseball team. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Florida. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You might as well included the other teams in the Florida Collegiate Summer League. – The Grid (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Grid I'm not doing a mass nomination, but nothing is stopping someone else from doing it. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect - There is some independent coverage of the team online, especially of their 2016 championship: [37][38][39]. If those don't provide sufficient reason for the article to be kept, I think it should be redirected to the league's page instead of deleted, to preserve the information there in case significant coverage is found or created in the future. Hatman31 (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hatman31 I think that is enough coverage. I would like to withdraw this, but I forgot where to find how to close this AfD by myself. SL93 (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have found out how to close this myself, but I need to leave for work soon. I will do it later today. 12:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Joko Widodo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jokowi Effect[edit]

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

Not really a popular term that merit its own article, could be merged to Joko Widodo. Hddty (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Indonesia. Hddty (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Not independently notable. Mccapra (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seems to be a shorter term thing during a sort of honeymoon phase. Reywas92^Talk 02:25, 11 June 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. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no reasonable possibility that the outcome will be anything other than a consensus to keep. BD2412 T 01:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nilaji[edit]

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

I fail to see why a town of less than 100 people should have its own Wikipedia article. Fails WP:GNG Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised by looking at the revision history that an editor removed significant portions of this article. I think this XFD still stands however, given that before the radical changes, it had just one sentence stating it was a town in X location. Feel free to give your thoughts however. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note I have undone an inappropriate procedural close. The nominator had already specifically addressed the stated reason for it; and the rest was a WP:SUPERVOTE (GEOLAND is countered by both WP:NRVE and WP:5P5). This does not otherwise meet any of the speedy keep criteria; and should be discussed per the usual standards. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
special:diff/1091191270. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

copying my response from my user talk page: "Proper closing statement doesnt mean supervote, there is a big difference. My close was justified, I am not asking for reinstating it though. Also see: WP:SK#NOT, and WP:SNOW." —usernamekiran (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND #1, the village is populated and legally recognised and is presumed notable thus we create an article. The ref I added [40] and the population from Census verifies the existence — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to add, the Census district handbook I've added, the pdf from [41] has two Nilaji villages: one in Raibag C.D. and one in Belgaum C.D.. The Deccan Herald article verifies the one in Raibag taluk. Thus I changed the article to represent about the one in Raibag taluk and thus added data respectively. If secondary sources could be uncovered for Nilaji in Belgaum C.D., then another article could be created for that at "Nilaji, Belgaum taluk" and this one moved to "Nilaji, Raibag taluk" — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is literally WP:BUTITEXISTS, which completely misses the point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This place meets WP:GEOLAND per above -- Ab207 (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Belagavi district or Dabify per Dax's finding; as a WP:ATD since there is no WP:SIGCOV about this place. "meets GEOLAND" for locations is as unconvincing of a rationale as "meets NSPORTS" is for sports bios. No subject is inherently notable; and if the only thing we have about a place is its population from the census, then that is not really enough to warrant an article here. Even GEOLAND is clear (Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Sources) that On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability.; but of the sources presented, none "describe the subject": we have census tables (which are routine coverage to be expected for literally anywhere) and a trivial mention of the town's name (but no coverage of it). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep with reliable sources already present, the article meets WP:GEOLAND. We have a precedent to keep articles under GEOLAND as long as there is even one reliable source proving it is a legally recognised place, regardless of population and coverage. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems flatly at odds with WP:NRVE and the whole of Wikipedia notability guidelines and common practice at AfD (including WP:BUTITEXISTS: A related phenomenon is the fallacy of entitlement: the notion that mere existence automatically entitles someone or something to a Wikipedia article). It is also a "precedent" which is not documented as such in the guidelines. A presumption of notability, as afforded by GEOLAND, is rebuttable. The lack of SIGCOV here speaks for itself. I will additionally note that the town's population, of a few thousand, is comparable to that of the average US census tract - and those are specifically not even given the presumption of being notable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHATABOUT, and WP:BURO. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find it profoundly ironic that you would cite NOTBURO after having made an argument that We have a precedent to keep articles under GEOLAND as long as there is even one reliable source proving it is a legally recognised place, regardless of population and coverage... I similarly find you flippantly dismissing my argument by incorrectly claiming it is a "what about X" argument to be equally ironic and unconvincing when your own argument is "similar pages get kept per GEOLAND", without addressing at all the fundamental issue here, which is that this particular page fails WP:SIGCOV and other community-endorsed requirement (which a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can simply not make irrelevant). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly go through the current wording of WP:SNG: "Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG." It's abundantly clear that places which are evaluated to meet GEOLAND, do not have to meet GNG again. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are part of WP:N; and WP:NRVE states, unequivocally, that No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists. Even GEOLAND says quite simply and clearly that sources need to do more than just trivially mention the subject: This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject.; and sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability. Mere existence is not enough (Wikipedia is neither an indiscriminate collection of information; or a directory), you still need sources that meet WP:SIGCOV. And none has been presented here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But this article doesn't depend on "maps and tables for establishing topic notability", it has a reliable source [42] proving it is a legally recognised census town. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is verifiable evidence that the subject is "Populated, legally recognized place" per GEOLAND. We are using census sources for that, rather than mere maps and tables -- Ab207 (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what is census data but a collection of statistical tables? Again, your reading of GEOLAND is faulty. Simply because it is a "Populated, legally recognized place" does not mean it gets an article automatically. It is only "presumed" to be notable, and presumptions are not absolutes; and WP:N and GEOLAND both make clear that simple, mere existence, without sources which describe the subject instead of simply mentioning, is not enough. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the lead of WP:N, "presumption of notability" applies to both GNG and SNG equally but you seem to be misconstructing it as a preference for GNG over SNG. Sure, you are still within your right to propose a valid merge/redirect target, and let the consensus decide. But portraying an SNG as some kind of lesser criteria in evaluating notability is what I object to. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that the presumption of GEOLAND is being here treated as some form of absolute; despite that not being what the word "presume" means in English, and despite the fact GEOLAND itself is clear that you actually do need to have more coverage than mere proof of existence. You seem to be misconstruing GEOLAND as being an automatic-notability-pass. Emphatically, it isn't. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: Hi. I apologise for my previous brief comment, I was on mobile. I am sorry it sounded a little curt. I can see where you are coming from, and I do understand you. Most of Indian, and south asian cities do not get significant coverage unless they are tourist spot, industrial hub/metropolitan, or historically significant. That would make at least 50% of such cities fail GNG. We are here to build an online encyclopaedia, we do not have limitations of hard-paper. In essence, WP:NRVE, GNG and other policies/guidelines are created to avoid spamming/advertising. When it comes to towns (article creation), marketing/advertising is not a concern. If somebody tries that, it can be handled on case-by-case basis. We do have essays Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability, and Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability, I have often brought up these essays in AfD about people, and organisations. But when it comes to legally recognised census towns, and species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are generally kept − WP:NSPECIES. There are some topics which are generally kept/considered notable as long as they are legally/technically recognised, and has one reliable source verifying the subject's recognition. We also have Wikipedia:Obscure does not mean not notable. Simply put, sometimes we have to bypass a policy/guideline to maintain the spirit of wikipedia, and for greater good. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. We are still an encyclopedia, which means that we are a summary of knowledge; a summary of existing sources. If the only existing sources about a topic merely confirm its existence, or are wide-ranging all-inclusive catalogues or databases (or, censuses), then we simply don't have enough material from which to write an article. Something which simply says "X is a town in [region]" is nothing more than an uninformative catalogue listing. If a guideline says "this might be notable", but there is no evidence it is notable, then it isn't; in the same way that someone presumed innocent of a crime (as per due process) does not remain innocent once they have been found guilty. Of course, as an encyclopedia, we still want to be informative, hence why the redirect (so people still have a clue where the place is); but that is not a reason to have an article when there is nothing to be written about the subject. WP:NSPECIES (and any criteria which leads to practical interpretations of "exists therefore is notable", as how you seem to be interpreting GEOLAND to be) seems similarly problematic to the previous versions of WP:NSPORTS (which has, finally, after way too much effort, been mostly updated to correspond more closely with what actually warrants an encyclopedic article) in that it encourages lots of articles which are merely glorified database entries (and an encyclopedia is not a database); but that's a debate for another place and time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes, there are a few SNGs I would like to see deprecated, including beauty pageant winners, but not geoland, and definitely not the NSPECIES. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then stop arguing that we should have articles about stuff we have nothing to write about. :) Anyway, I think we've both made our views abundantly clear and there's no point further continuing this here on this page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yup :-D but this is the reason why we have SNGs in the first place. We cant apply same notability criteria to everything. But like you said, thats a discussion for another venue. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just remembered another AfD where GNG vs SNG was debated against each other: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roshan Meka — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify per RandomCanadian if that's an option, otherwise Delete (since there is no article other than this for the topic, does WP:DAB apply?) FWIW there is some coverage in regional languages, but nothing more than bare mentions. There are at least four more villages by the same name though - one each in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, two in Orissa. I understand the expansive GEOLAND/SNG interpretations, but if there is no proper source for a topic, no article can be written. Hemantha (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DAB can applied as long as the term is mentioned in any particular article (MOS:DABMENTION) -- Ab207 (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The mentions shown by search appear to not be from any legitimate content, but from the nav template ((Settlements_in_Belagavi_district)). It is hard to be sure from search hits alone, but a temporary removal from the template is an easy way to test. Hemantha (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Presumably the places/villages consider as notable. Meets WP:GEOLAND. BrutBrother (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GEOLAND explicitly requires sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it [to] establish notability. As such, this doesn't meet GEOLAND. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is unclear if the discussion is currently focused on the village of 7,000 people in Karnataka that is the current version, or the hijacked article about a village of less than 100 people in Maharashtra. Please focus discussion solely on the former. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DaxServer, there is no requirement to have a certain population per WP:BIG. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Small, but viable article (and yes LaundryPizza03, I am looking at the Karnataka village). SpinningSpark 20:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GEOLAND as a populated, legally recognized place. Also keep per WP:5, point #1, "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". It makes no sense to dumb down the encyclopedia regarding legally recognized places, which would essentially provide unnecessary and damaging holes in the encyclopedia regarding geographic places. While it states in the Sources section of WP:NGEO, "sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability", this does not nullify or take precedence over point #1 of WP:GEOLAND. I ought to know, because I was one of the users who worked to clarify WP:NGEO and to get it promoted to a notability guideline back in the day. The spirit of NGEO is that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This officially recognized population center could have less than 10 people and still be considered notable as there's an inherent notability with population centers as well as WP:GEOLAND and WP:5PILLARS. Oakshade (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per note on my Talk. Formatted note TK immediately below
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting/original closer comment @Northamerica1000 left a note on my Talk and at this time I do not have time to properly re-analyze at the level NA's in depth request requires/I'd like to provide so I'm relisting for someone else to assess. The text of my n/c close is here for convenience. Star Mississippi 01:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that at Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) it does not state that Populated, legally recognized places require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That particular requirement is for Populated places without legal recognition, under point #2 of WP:GEOLAND, where it states that said places are "considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG". However, this stipulation is not in place for Populated, legally recognized places, which is covered under point #1 of WP:GEOLAND, nor should it be, because this was not the intention when the page was finalized as a guideline.

Per WP:5, Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. I was one of the people that helped to develop WP:NGEO further and to get it promoted to a guideline page. If people want to change the guideline page, it should be done at the guideline talk page, rather than at individual AfD discussions.

Above in this discussion, a user has created a synthesis of wording at the guideline page, stating, "GEOLAND explicitly requires sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it [to] establish notability". However, GEOLAND does not state this at all. Rather, it states there, under the Sources section, "sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability." This statement is within the context of the preceding sentence stating, "This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability..." This general, generic statement regarding sources other than tables and maps does not magically override everything else on the page, nor does it nullify point #1 of WP:GEOLAND. It is just general guidance, nothing more. Point #1 certainly does not "explicitly" state that significant coverage is a requirement at all, not even in the slightest. Point #2 does. Point #2 is not point #1. Nilaji is a legally recognized populated place, and as such, per point #1 of WP:GEOLAND, such places are typically presumed to be notable. It is as simple as that. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is presumed notable as per WP:GEOLAND. CT55555 (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable under WP:GEOLAND, as the nom would have known if they had bothered to read it properly. A time-wasting nomination. Ingratis (talk) 03:29, 11 June 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Rodriguez (American Political Consultant)[edit]

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

Non-notable political consultant. Reliable sources are cited in the article, but they only cover Rodriguez in the context of relatively minor (alleged) election fraud. Identified simply as "Woman" in the CBS source, an indicator of her lack of notability. The Center Square source mentions that in June 2021, 500 election fraud cases against 43 defendants were pending in Texas courts. Rodriguez's case isn't exceptional. Mooonswimmer 00:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The political consultant is notable given the prosecution for election fraud. Those prosecutions have been relatively rare, and it elevates the notoriety of the subject significantly. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you agree with me that reliable sources are cited.

Keep in mind that under the "general notability guidelines" notability here is presumed, because the individual has received "significant coverage in reliable sources" including, in addition to those already cited in the article:

https://foxsanantonio.com/i-lied-woman-at-center-of-voter-fraud-accusations-speaks-out-says-none-of-it-was-true

https://www.fox44news.com/news/state-news/san-antonio-woman-accused-of-election-fraud/

https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/project-veritas-election-fraud-gave-15994192.php

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2021/01/13/texas-ag-san-antonio-woman-in-project-veritas-video-arrested-on-election-related-charges/

https://thetexan.news/san-antonio-woman-filmed-by-project-veritas-arrested-on-voter-fraud-charges/

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/TX-woman-arrested-election-fraud-project-veritas-15867537.php

https://sanangelolive.com/news/politics/2020-10-28/texas-ag-investigating-voter-fraud-scheme-texas

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/ag-paxton-woman-accused-of-voter-fraud-in-san-antonio-arrested-charged/

One news outlet goes even farther, and thinks the fact of her defense attorney is newsworthy (it's the former district attorney in the jurisdiction) - https://www.ktsa.com/former-bexar-county-da-nico-lahood-representing-woman-charged-with-election-fraud/

I think the Texas Attorney General nicely articulates the significance of the prosecution:

"“Many continue to claim that there’s no such thing as election fraud. We’ve always known that such a claim is false and misleading, and today we have additional hard evidence. This is a victory for election integrity and a strong signal that anyone who attempts to defraud the people of Texas, deprive them of their vote, or undermine the integrity of elections will be brought to justice,” said Attorney General Paxton." JArthur1984 (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRIMINAL & not passing WP:GNG. Also WP:BLP issues with article at current time, hasn't been convicited, lack of mention that she claims she was niece of eldery women she was helping vote, which would significant reduce charges she is facing. Project Veritas has a better WP:NPOV than this with its short blurb on the incident, which is enough coverage for Wikipedia imo. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize the suggestion on her niece argument and added it here, although I disagree with the remainder. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Texas. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, and WP:BLPCRIME. The fact that this story was regurgitated by several regional news sources does not make it encyclopedically remarkable or confer notability on the subject. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do you square your comment with the guidance that, "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source."?

I have shown far more than two sources (cited in the article and here on the deletion talk page). They were not "regurgitated" - these sources report on different stages on the reporting, from the hidden camera news organization that broke the story, to those that covered the initial reaction, to when she was charged, and even one outlet that thought the fact of Rodriguez's criminal defense attorney was significant. And I don't think the knock on regional news sources is germane. Significant things happen in Texas too, and we ought not to have regional biases. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JArthur1984 While GNG is a broad general policy applied in most instances, in certain cases we have more specific guidelines which raise the standard of inclusion to a higher threshold. These policies apply in this case because this is a biography of a living person, and as such the policies of WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME both trump GNG and must be strictly enforced. In this case we would need to see evidence of the notability of Raquel Rodriguez other than the reporting on the crime that was committed. If you can produce significant coverage of Rodrigues in multiple independent sources (a minimum of 3 not 2) with zero mention of the crime and that spans across time (per WP:SUSTAINED), then and only then is the subject able to pass BLP1E and BLPCRIME. The exception to this would be if the crime itself becomes a high profile event with SUSTAINED coverage in a variety of types of sources (books, journal articles, etc. not just the news) and beyond just a single region (ie national or global coverage; otherwise the subject is considered “low profile” and fails BLP1E) However, that is not the case here as the sources are too chronologically close to one another to demonstrate sustained coverage, and they are part of the routine news cycle in local newspapers and other local media. (See WP:NOTNEWS) 4meter4 (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, and WP:BLPCRIME.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 19 June 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 Baddies (TV series)#Spin-off. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Boys (TV series)[edit]

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

Streaming web series that lacks significant coverage in reliable sourcing. I did a Google search and wasn't able to locate anything in RS.The series is new-ish and could garner more press in the future but as of now it fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Delete. Citrivescence (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baddies (TV series)#Spin-off until more sourcing exists for notability. Perhaps rename to Bad Boys: Los Angeles first before move. Leaving the could be better option if more season are produce with different cities/suffixes, so no real preference to which. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:26, 14 June 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 Germany at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walther Jesinghaus[edit]

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

Prodded with the justification Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#Delete #1, as there are multiple valid targets (under Walter Hesinghaus), and as we cannot assume which one the reader is looking for the search function is more effective.

Mentioned in "The Extinguished Flame: Olympians Killed in The Great War", but no WP:SIGCOV

Prod removed by Lugnuts with the edit summary possibly more about him via his army days BilledMammal (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing more can be found on him, then redirect to Germany at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough sourcing to justify an article nor anything that indicates this person was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 13 June 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 Germany at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eberhard Sorge[edit]

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

Prodded with the justification Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#Delete #1, as there are multiple valid targets, and as we cannot assume which one the reader is looking for the search function is more effective.

Passing mention in "The Extinguished Flame: Olympians Killed in The Great War"

Prod removed by Lugnuts with the edit summary possibly more about him via his army days BilledMammal (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing more can be found on him, then redirect to Germany at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just competing in the Olympics does not make one notable, nor does being one of millions of soldiers killed during WWI. There is nothing that suggests this person was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 13 June 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 Germany at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Staats[edit]

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

Prodded with the justification Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#Delete #1, as there are multiple valid targets, and as we cannot assume which one the reader is looking for the search function is more effective.

A few passing mentions in "The Extinguished Flame: Olympians Killed in The Great War", but no WP:SIGCOV

Prod removed by Lugnuts, with the edit summary possibly more about him via his army days BilledMammal (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing more can be found on him, then redirect to Germany at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing here to suggest that this person was in any way notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 13 June 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.