< March 13 March 15 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing isn't there to merit a standalone article. If someone wants to work on this in draft, happy to provide, but if it's going to molder we'll delete now vs. in six months. Star Mississippi 00:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Charman

[edit]
Rodney Charman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Nothing in the article or elsewhere online can be found to contribute towards notability. Edwardx (talk) 23:24, 14 March 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) 21:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer B. Kahnweiler

[edit]
Jennifer B. Kahnweiler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Appears rather promotional. Edwardx (talk) 23:16, 14 March 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. Consensus is relatively clear. Star Mississippi 01:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Athar Aamir Khan

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Athar Aamir Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single event notability. No page for other peer-level District Magistrates, or 1st, or 2nd rankers. Also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Dabi User4edits (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to close this but this article was subject of a previous AFD just 6 months ago that involved a Deletion Review so more editor input is sought here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to vote once more; as nom, yours is already counted. Hemantha (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rashid, Omar (11 May 2016). "Athar Khan of Kashmir secures second place". The Hindu.
  2. ^ Dhawan, Himanshi. "Athar Aamir Khan loses UPSC rank one to Tina Dabi, wins her heart". The Economic Times.
  3. ^ Jameel, Yusuf (10 April 2018). "IAS topper Tina Dabi and runner-up Athar Khan tie knot in Pahalgam". Deccan Chronicle.
  4. ^ "Tina Dabi And Athar Aamir Khan, IAS Topper Couple, Divorced". NDTV.com.
  5. ^ Mir, Ehasn (11 May 2016). "UPSC success story: From militancy-hit Valley, India gets an inspiration". The Indian Express.
Hemantha (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I may do that. Even if they are independent though, the style of journalism is akin to tabloid style press in the United States which is not significant for establishing notability. We need better quality sources than these. WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:NOTGOSSIP applies.4meter4 (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS focuses on events and about what kind of details are covered in an article. It has nothing to say about determining notability. In other words, it is a policy about what to include in an article once it is decided that an article should exist. The determination of whether an article should exist is being made here and for that WP:GNG (and other notability guidelines) apply.
My claim is not that the article should be written based only on the links above; my claim is that given the above references, the subject is notable per WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't in anyway refute that argument. The purpose of AfD is not to exhaustively list all possible references on which the article can be written; it's only to bring forth evidence of notability per GNG or other SNG. Hemantha (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing my point. Tabloid press like this is trivial coverage (as confirmed by NOTNEWS); thereby failing the "significant coverage" portion of WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. WP:BLP1E is also an issue here.4meter4 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 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! 23:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Powell (pastor)

[edit]
Philip Powell (pastor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage. also WP:NOTRESUME applies. Most of the sources (including the dead links) are primary. LibStar (talk) 22:43, 14 March 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. A lot of the comments are brief, and while AfD is not a vote, the amount of detailed policy reasons to both keep and delete the article about cancel each other out. A discussion about renaming can occur outside of the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

[edit]
Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be an entirely non-notable meta article that could be easily incorporated into the article about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. So I propose merging the text into that article and deleting this one, unless general notability can be established. Grnrchst (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot force you to be kind, but I will ask you to be fair: I did not advocate for what you say this leads to and I think you are at risk of escalating my point into a Straw man argument. I would say my point applies to the three articles that start "Wikipedia coverage of..." without expanding it to the extent you've suggested. I recognize I made a bold argument, I recognize my logic could be flawed, and if that is how you see it, I invite you to refute the key point of what I have made, instead of escalating it into a larger, different point and refuting that. CT55555 (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The word impossible is an absolute quantifier that, as stated, applies to all members of Category:Wikipedia. On the other hand nonsensical seems like a personal attack. We can disagree with arguments while respecting that they are stated in good faith. Now that we've had clarification: there is obviously a fundamentally difficult COI in having Wikipedians decide whether an article about Wikipedia is notable. A pattern on how to handle these cases may emerge from practice (such as this case), in which each case has different characteristics. An uninvolved ... Wikipedian will have to close this discussion sooner or later and help build up the pattern of which of these articles are acceptable and which aren't. Boud (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since Wikipedia is an important part of the net culture and society, not only our contents but also our behaviour as a community is under the scrutiny of the outside world. Therefore, reputable, independent, diverse and reliable sources discussing this meta topic are already available for most of the themes mentioned above (it might be a bit too early for deep scientific analyses). More will show up as events develop. Hence I see WP:GNG to be passed.
For now, I would keep the article title as it is, but depending on how the article would develop, it could be renamed to a (then) more suitable title at a later stage.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:49, 20 March 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. There is no reasonable prospect at this point that a consensus will develop to delete this article. BD2412 T 05:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy, We Hardly Knew You

[edit]
Daddy, We Hardly Knew You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The book's sources include two descriptions of the book that have no named author (because both were likely written by its publicist or some other non-independent person) and another to a primary source that mentions how the book was mentioned once in a Simpson's episode (there is no discussion of the book there at all). This article needs to show evidence of the book being the subject of discussion in multiple verifiable reliable and (most important) WP:INDEPENDENT sources that discuss the subject (the book) non-trivially (which I did not find). A loose necktie (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: do these reviews count as more than W:ROUTINE coverage of the subject? Or are they the kind of coverage that any book of this type is likely to receive? Are there any guidelines on this? A loose necktie (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how WP:ROUTINE is applied to articles related to art--it's not similar to routine coverage about candidates for minor political offices. I suppose, in the book sense, that routine coverage would be "just" Kirkus or Publishers Weekly or Library Journal reviews... Caro7200 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would usually consider it “routine” for a book to be listed under “books received” at an academic journal or “books published” in a trade mag like PW, the kinds of things which basically just say “this exists”. You’d be surprised how often books don’t even get Kirkus and Booklist reviews. So I consider Kirkus, PW, and Booklist reviews non-routine/non-trivial, though they’re not always thrilling as evidence of notability, so I like to see all three and maybe a starred review at one of them to feel confident in a book’s notability. There is nothing remotely routine about getting reviewed in the New York Times. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:32, 16 March 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! 23:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Pearson (computer scientist)

[edit]
David Pearson (computer scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a vanity article produced by the subject. The sources may not support the statements being made, or fail to report on the subject with more than a passing mention. An IP claiming to be the subject (24.207.103.36) has asked that it be deleted. signed, Willondon (talk) 21:40, 14 March 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 Boomerang (TV network)#Spain. The history remains under the redirect. @Samueldester1234: if you'd like it to work on in draft space before taking it through AfC, just met me know. Star Mississippi 00:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang (Spanish TV channel)

[edit]
Boomerang (Spanish TV channel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't appear to be independently notable of Boomerang (TV network). This article appears to be about a channel for Spain (see the only ref), rather than a more general Spanish-language channel. As such, I propose that this be redirected to Boomerang (TV network)#Spain, where the channel can be covered in sufficient depth. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the discussion ended? Because if it is, I’m gonna remove the template from the wiki page. Samueldester1234 — Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, these things have to be formally closed by an uninvolved editor/admin. Posting a request at WP:RFCLOSE might be worthwhile if you feel that there is particular urgency for this discussion to be closed. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:41, 21 March 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Fashion Enthusiast

[edit]
The Fashion Enthusiast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unsourced article, the infobox website of which directs us to a tumblr-based fashion blog. A version of this page has previously been draftified, though the creator of this page simply decided to re-create the page in the mainspace instead of working on the draft. Part of me thinks that this is a hoax, since the linked tumblr blog has not posted since 2017 despite the photograph in the infobox (labeled as "own work" and uploaded by the article creator) being dated "March 24, 2022".(update: an IP changed the infobox URL and it appears to be pointing at the website depicted by the image) In any case, the website appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, so I propose that it be deleted. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)(updated: 13:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Fair enough. Delete fails NWEB.-KH-1 (talk) 00:10, 16 March 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. Proposed improvements can be made to the existing draft. I note that despite the assertion that the article is under construction, no additional improvements of substance have been made in the period of this deletion discussion. BD2412 T 00:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summertime Saga

[edit]
Summertime Saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; cannot find much of reliable sourcing to warrant an article. The corresponding draft at Draft:Summertime Saga has already been denied as "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." – Pbrks (t • c) 21:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn’t notable at this point it would make more sense to delete the article until there is enough coverage.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 03:37, 22 March 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. Nominated by a sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Panchwadkar

[edit]
Girish Panchwadkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable singer. Fails WP:SINGER. No news coverage Cinzia007 (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC) struck confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:25, 14 March 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. Nobody is persuaded by the sources found by Cunard. Sandstein 09:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Kazama

[edit]
James Kazama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor - no in-depth coverage to be found in reliable sources in English, Chinese, or Thai that I can see. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. In addition, article is unsourced, promotional and largely created by a series of WP:SPAs so WP:TNT applies. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added these sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for finding these sources. I'm unconvinced they show real notability. They are pure fluff coverage that may as well have been a press release from Kazama's agent. In fact, all the pieces are so similar that I strongly suspect they were all based on a press release from his agent. They all also seem to relate only to his appearance on 使徒行者2, a HK television show. Is there any reliable coverage for any other part of his career? Ganesha811 (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject received significant biographical coverage in 2017 and 2020 in bylined sources for his role in zh:使徒行者2. That he received significant coverage three years apart is sustained coverage that is sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. I did not find significant coverage that did not relate to his role in zh:使徒行者2. The articles contain some similar information and some different information. Some of the sources say he speaks seven languages (Chinese, English, French, Japanese, Thai, Spanish, and German), while some include Chinese dialects and say he speaks nine languages (Cantonese, Mandarin, Teochew, English, French, Japanese, Thai, Spanish, and German). I searched for quotes from each article and could not find any evidence that the articles are based on press releases from his agent. Cunard (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Each of these five articles has James Kazama as its subject. They discuss his biographical background in detail. I do not agree that there is "no in-depth coverage" about him. Regarding "Lots and lots of PR", I could find no evidence that these sources are based on PR. The sources were published in 2017 and 2020. It would be unlikely for a PR campaign about this to last three years. Cunard (talk) 09:02, 22 March 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! 23:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conn Nugent

[edit]
Conn Nugent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with lots of references, but none of them seem to be about him. Rathfelder (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify and redirect. I am AGFing the creator that he has a whole word document that includes sources that might get us over the notability barrier, although I share the consensus concerns that Rensselear mayor may never be notable. Dellis12144, how long an article has existed is not a barrier to deletion. Please go through AfC before reinstating this article. At the moment I am protecting the redirect to ensure no out of process creations occur. Star Mississippi 00:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stammel

[edit]
Michael Stammel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small town mayor, meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 15:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dellis12144, the creator of the page, is known for editing and creating articles related to Rensselaer, New York and Rensselaer County. Given that the IP is located in that specific area, it is safe to assume that the user is editing as an IP in an attempt to sway this discussion in some way. KidAd • SPEAK 22:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you tagging me? I did post a comment: since the article is a contender for being improved, it should be moved to draft space. There are plenty of valid sources on the internet for information on Michael Stammel that may be used. There is no reason to delete an article that has many reference sources available even if the subject is a representative of a smaller size community. Dellis12144 (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my comment? I tagged you because I think you logged out of your account to comment in this AfD as an IP. Am I wrong? Is that IP not you pretending to be someone else? KidAd • SPEAK 00:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KidAd my account stays logged in 24 hours a day. Not sure how I could comment as someone else and not know. Why are you so adamant about deleting the article when many updates have been made to it? I've added more information as well as many more sources for the information. You state that the subject is not notable. I do want to let you know that there are many other local level politicians listed on Wikipedia as well. With valid resources, there is no reason they shouldn't be. If you'd like, I can send you a word document with every single news story I can find on Mr. Stammel online to prove that he is indeed notable. Dellis12144 (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 14 March 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. If you believe a move to a different title is appropriate, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-German war

[edit]
Russo-German war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neither entry is a war article, but rather about a front in a war, nor do people call either overall conflict the "Russo-German War". Also, descriptive terms do not make suitable dab pages. Eastern Front is where these entries belong (and are listed). Clarityfiend (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, neither of the entries is a war. Second, those hits are mostly for a "Russo-German war", not the "Russo-German War" (and the vast majority all but one of the ones I checked refer to World War II). Dab pages are for actual titles, not descriptive phrases. Mount Everest, K2, etc. are tall, dangerous mountains; does that mean there should be a Tall mountain (disambiguation) or Dangerous mountain to climb (disambiguation)? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally different animal. As I've stated above, neither of the entries is a war article; they're front articles, and List of war fronts contested by Germany and Russia just doesn't have that je ne sais quoi. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 14 March 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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethelmary Oakland

[edit]
Ethelmary Oakland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Oakland appeared in a few films when she was 7 and 8. I am less than convinced any of her roles were actually significant. One is listed second in the cast list, but only because it is the main role as a child. We have only IMDB as a source, which is not reliable. A search for sources produced nothign that was coverage passing GNG. Oakland lived over 80 years after she last appeared in a film and we seem to know absolutely nothing about that part of her life. She does not seem to in any way have been a public figure, and I see no benefit to having basically a short blurd grouping together her very few film roles. There are very rare people who did things at age 7 and 8 that make them notable, but Oakland does not seem to have been such a person. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make assumptions about why she's second listed in the cast. And playing the main character as a child is a fine reason to be second listed. What a bogus thing to mention in an AfD nomination. It's totally normal for a child actor to transition to anonymity and not get press after. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

keep per meeting GNG. Good HEY work. The nomination rationale is out of line and all of the above means that this should be a speedy keep and close, though I don't foresee that happening. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for withdrawing, John. I appreciate it! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request made for someone authorized to close this "withdraw" request to delete this article. --Ooligan (talk) 00:05, 20 March 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. and going to salt this edition for good measure Star Mississippi 01:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikheil Lomtadze

[edit]
Mikheil Lomtadze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Non-references used. UPE. The references are very poor and what coverage is there is routine PR. scope_creepTalk 01:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today I’ve read all the corrections and modifications in the article ever made in the English Wikipedia and I would like to inform you on the following: Mikheil Lomtadze is a well-known figure in Kazakhstan and Georgia. As experts state, today his name is inextricably associated with Kaspi.kz. Thanks to the Strategy of Mikheil Lomtadze, the Kaspi.kz app has become a de facto payment system of Kazakhstan, and a share of non-cash payments is more than 50%, thus contributing to a decrease in the share of the shadow economy and giving an impetus to the economic growth and GDP growth, tax revenues and reducing corruption in Kazakhstan. Ruslan Yensebaev, the Vice-Minister of Finance said, that by 2021, his team together with Mikheil Lomtadze would work out a mechanism of fiscalisation of cash settlements in compliance with the requirements of the State Revenue Committee. Financiers emphasise that such digitalisation of the economy of Kazakhstan will definitely provide a significant boost to multiple structural reforms, including the pension one. In October 2019, Lomtadze planned to hold an IPO on the London Stock Exchange and introduce Kazakhstan at the innovative world map. Experts believe, this IPO will be the first international IPO outside the quasi-state sector for recent years, strengthening the capacity of Kazakhstan and attracting investors to the commercial sector in the country. Analysts predicted high demand for shares of the Kazakhstan company. Exactly a year later, in October 2020, Mikheil Lomtadze conducted a successful IPO of Kaspi.kz on the London Stock Exchange, and according to Refinitiv, it was the second largest public stock offering in the UK in 2020 and the fourth largest one in Europe. After his success at the LSE, Mikheil Lomtadze was recognised as one of the richest and most influential businessman in Kazakhstan. Mikheil is ranking 356th in the world Forbes rating and his wealth is estimated at more than $5 billion. In 2020-2021, the success of Mikheil Lomtadze at the London Stock Exchange attracted attention of President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Zhomart Tokayev who twice held meetings with Mikheil Lomtadze and discussed the digital services development strategy and the prospects for e-commerce growth in Kazakhstan. At meetings with foreign investors Tokayev talked about the success of a Kazakhstan fintech company Kaspi.kz. In 2021, the Cabinet of the United Kingdom paid attention to the activities of Lomtadze and Kaspi.kz. In August 2021, Mikheil Lomtadze became the richest and most influential person in Georgia.

In May 2019, Lomtadze became a member of the Harvard Business School Advisory Council. In September 2019, Mikheil Lomtadze reported on entering the market of Azerbaijan and announced the further development of business in Central Asia and in the Caucasus, and in 2021 he announced the business development for Ukraine aiming to promote a digital transformation of the entire region. Thus, I think it is inappropriate to delete the article about Mikheil Lomtadze as the encyclopedic importance of his personality is undeniable. It is necessary to note that my article about another businessman with an equivalent position was published on Wikipedia. Please do not delete the article. I am planning to finalize the material in the future according to all rules of Wikipedia. I’d appreciate all recommendations for improvement and mentoring.--Deviloper (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You basically just proved their point--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good day! If you are talking about a ticket and that the article is PR in nature or paid up, then I beg to differ with the views you have. The increased interest in the personality of Mikheil Lomtadze is quite justified. He is building an entirely new technological Kazakhstan, and all over the world are oriented on his business model. Even the Minister of England said he was waiting for Kaspi in England. Entry to Ukraine was within the nearest plans, but as now appears it is indefinitely postponed.Besides, given the events that took place in Kazakhstan in January, the British Parliament called for a series of sanctions to be imposed on Kazakh businessmen. They are now in crosshairs and everybody are wondering who they are and how they came to success.--Deviloper (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original title, Mikhail Lomtadze, is SALTed, so this article taken directly out of draftspace without being approved by WikiProject AfC reviewers, is a direct attempt to circumvent our controls by a likely paid editor. Are we going to respect our efforts to stop subjects rich enough to buy editing help or are we just going to look the other way when this sort of thing happens? I'm honestly asking as I can't figure out what this editing community is trying to accomplish. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: I didn't see it. I'll check this in the future. Thanks for posting it. scope_creepTalk 12:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: I've posted a message to user:MER-C who will take a look at it. scope_creepTalk 12:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the fact this article has been deleted multiple times and salted because it. Make sure you check that the next time instead of wasting everybodies time. scope_creepTalk 15:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being rich and oligarch doesn't define notability. Secondary sources do and they're are none. scope_creepTalk 20:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 14 March 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. Closed early per WP:SNOW. Although there are certainly very many "keep" opinions in the vein of WP:ITSIMPORTANT that are questionable in terms of Wikipedia inclusion rules, what this discussion makes clear is that (a) the arguments for deletion are not widely supported by experienced Wikipedians, and (b) a consensus to outright delete the article will not come about here, given that there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merging the content to a topically related article. I therefore suggest that such alternatives should be discussed on the article talk page before renominating the article for deletion. Sandstein 11:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Ovsyannikova

[edit]
Please note that this is a conversation about how well this topic fits Wikipedia's guidelines. It is not an assessment of the bravery or morality of the action.


Marina Ovsyannikova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO1E at this point. I salute her, but there is no indication that this minor event will have lasting implications. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RT anchor resigned on air about 10 yrs ago, it's happened before. She barely has a mention. This is a small event. We need proof that she's eligible as a journalist or news reporter. Simply holding up a sign isn't enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned RT anchor has her own Wikipedia article, so this precedent actually supports keeping the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Wahl#RT_America Ramendik (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a small event, Why is there such a discussion here then? Jsvahn (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not listening to censhorship when we talk about it here. More akin to pro-Ukraine propaganda, regardless, no trolling please. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WhiteCherepan, Matrek, Milowent, 90.201.109.54, others: I know that the situation with Ukraine and Russia is very significant and causing reason for concern about Ovsyannikova. But, we should not let these events influence what to keep and delete on Wikipedia. For instance, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and I have been seeing some keep arguments suggesting that the person will become famous for her act. But, we must not forget to adhere to policies and guidelines. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 21:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LPS and MLP Fan, personally I'm less swayed by this particular event than my view that English Wikipedia does a better job of doing fair articles on the fly during these events than anything else on the internet. There's no question we will cover this event as well at 2022 anti-war protests in Russia. But right now the world is searching her name, so I think the article can be kept and reassessed in a week or few weeks when things calm down. We don't have a specific rule or policy, but I've seen this be a de facto outcome many times in the last 15 years.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trougnouf, Vrrtigo, 51.154.1.122, 2A00:23C8:4F05:9001:8023:A242:95FE:C539, others: As I stated before, we need to evaluate whether this person is notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article. Google searches, number of sources, and personal opinions about the person are invalid arguments to make for keeping her article. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Russia's highly-controlled media industry is a model for autocratic regimes everywhere. It not only finds top people, but rewards them well. All of this makes for high retention, or what they might call loyalty. For an insider to rise up like this is highly remarkable. It could one of the signposts to a collapse of the war effort, or even of Russia's current regime. At least it tells us that key insiders are turning against the institutions that advanced this war. Frazierdp (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... really can't stress the influx of sleeper and single-purpose accounts enough. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep! i disagree. she set an example for millions to follow. her name should not be hidden as a footnote in an artikel about russian media. she stands out ! btw.: most delete rationale wants to merge (i.e.: hide) or brings up technicalities. that's how a lawyer would argue to prevent something. yeah...i really can't stress enough the influx of people who want to prevent the truth from beeing spread ! i wonder who they might be working for... 51.154.1.122 (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PerpetuityGrat: Please don't denigrate people who disagree with you by calling them "sleeper and single-purpose accounts". The topic under discussion here, or generally on Wikipedia, is not other wikipedians. Silver hr (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver hr: how am I denigrating others by calling a spade a spade? Literally half of the users on this talk page are brand new accounts, or spontaneously came back after taking a multi-month hiatus. Just calling it like it is, how does this denigrate users? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PerpetuityGrat: Your accusations imply that some people participating in this conversation aren't equal participants. Everyone is an equal participant until proven otherwise. If you have concerns about some accounts being sockpuppets, raise an issue at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If your concern is not with sockpuppetry, but other forms of systematic manipulation of Wikipedia, I suppose the appropriate venue would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Silver hr (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the users are socks... you shouldn't assume such, and obviously WP:SLEEPERS and one-purpose accounts are NOT the same as socks. Please do not conflate those things. One might get the impression you are trying to debase my input. You assumed I was denigrating users. You are wrong. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/14/ukraine-war-russian-anti-war-protester-interrupts-state-tv-news-broadcast Callmesolis (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
– I get 27000 hits when I search for her in Russian (with quotation marks, so only her). More references than many other journalists who are featured on Wikipedia. Also more than enough material for a whole article. MahaNakhon (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
386'000 hits in diff. languages, 22'24 GDP, 14.03.2022 51.154.1.122 (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your own definition totally shoots down your suggestion to delete. We require "significant coverage"? She is being covered on every major news outlet I've seen today, from Washington Post to The Guardian to Sky News, down to every minor news outlet as well. Some of them are providing pages of background and commentary. Her actions are getting extremely significant coverage. 220.245.146.177 (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or give a chapter in a relevant article - it's very difficult to get the message across to Russians relying on their national TV only. They've been lied to for years and are predetermined to view current reality basically upside down. What this lady has done is nothing but heroism, and may well serve as a trigger in changing this current tragic status quo between Russian and Ukrainian societies. Peace everyone. 86.38.230.141 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    if adds any weight to the argument, I'm a former admin on a foreign wiki, but it's been a while so forgot login info. I've spent these several weeks trying to talk to Russians on social media, those who either don't know or deny Russia's invasion to Ukraine, I don't know how successfully since now they legally are prevented from voicing any opinion departing from Russian institutional stance. But generally it's like trying to talk with hundreds of hungry wolves. So in the context of this, it takes such a courage and will to do as this woman did, it's even difficult to find words to describe it. I believe her story will be significant. 86.38.230.141 (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now / Wait. Let this article and topic few days to solidify. Yug (talk) 🐲 21:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a historic event. Digimag (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others Ecpiandy (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, She is already history and has been compared to Tank Man of '89 student protest in china by major news media. HansClumsy (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it was not for those who heard it would Paul Revere be relevant? He was just a silversmith. This article should remain until the relevance has been judged by time. One year should pass before any talk of deletion should occur. Sparks appear insignificant unless the ignite something. Let’s wait and see. 2601:348:4100:2150:E98C:554F:B473:8EBC (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that there is a strong consensus already, and that the Articles for deletion tag is degrading ms Ovsyannikova just as a deletion-tag on the Tank Man would degrade him and his act and play into the hands of China fascist censorship. I suggest removing the tag immedeately. This does not mean that this discussion has to stop. Only the tag is Putin-friendly. HansClumsy (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BIO1E, in relevant part, states that "[i]f the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Certainly the subject's role is central; thus the relative weight - the event's significance - is key in the conclusion to be drawn in applying WP:BIO1E. Rather than characterizing the subject event as "minor" or even moderately significant, several things go to its being "highly significant." Such weighing is a judgment, so basis in facts can be determinative. The following are salient facts: (a) by all accounts, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is of world-changing importance; (b) Russian support remains high due to the control over the news messaging in a manner that distorts the truth and is thus vulnerable to leaks; (c) this is the first, and so far only known penetration of the Russian media with counter-official messaging on the war; (d) accordingly, it is major news worldwide of a type that naturally leads people to Wikipedia for authoritative background (to be developed); (e) it is comparable to whistleblower leaks of covert intelligence refuting official narratives about any number of historic and/or ongoing events. David B. Graubert (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Famous individuals are mentioning her name, and it made her notable. --Cheol (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is there any indication that this is _not_ a major event - whether or not it has lasting implications. At least this event is shared worldwide within 12 hours after its occurence. 2A02:A449:FB99:1:F476:EAC3:8A2:F3D7 (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is not encyclopedic material per WP:NOTNEWS but perhaps keep it for now since a lot of people feel strongly about the incident. Delete later or better merge to Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 19:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Susanna Tamaro

[edit]
Susanna Tamaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Only two sources are cited, one of which is primary. A Google search turned up no usable secondary sources. JMB1980 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 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. A little bit per WP:SNOW, but mostly per WP:CSK no. 3 - "The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided."

In essence, the nomination claims that this rivalry "isn't a true rivalry" (seemingly because this match-up only happens rarely) and that this fails GNG.

A cursory glance shows that the second part is inaccurate, and consequently the first one is either similarly inaccurate or simply personal opinion (and personal opinion is not a deletion rationale). (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giants–Jets rivalry

[edit]
Giants–Jets rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is on a non-existent rivalry that has only comprised 14 total games, with only 2 games in the last 10 years. Teams are in opposite conferences, don't play each other regularly and have never met in the postseason. The only thing that connects them is that they play their home games in the same stadium and market.

The article is well written and sourced, but a close examination of the sourcing does not support the existence of a true rivalry, with many of the sources actually questioning whether a rivalry exists. Thus, this "rivalry" fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Toa Nidhiki05 and Muboshgu, both of your comments support the "shared history" of the two teams, both in stadiums and markets. But neither support the existence of an actual rivalry, where two teams play each other often, fans share hate of the other team, the teams have played important games against each other, etc. All this is, is two teams who play in the same stadium and market. Most of the really good sources actually question whether a rivalry really exists, with a number of articles highlighting the feelings of players and coaches that there is no real rivalry. Compare this to other well-known rivalries, like the Packers/Bears, and it becomes even more questionable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    fans share hate of the other team Have you talked to many Jets or Giants fans? That's where the rivalry lies, and that's backed up in RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BeanieFan11, the first result on your search is titled Giants-Jets rivalry: a war or a bore from 1980. The article goes on to explain how the players don't view it as a rivalry. The next relevant result is titled For vets, it's an off-on rivalry with a byline of Waiting time cools Giant-Jet rivalry from 1984. Again, an article about how a rivalry doesn't exist. Respectfully, if you aren't going to post relevant clippings from he Newspapers.com search, it really isn't helpful to post a link to search results. It would be like posting a link to a Google search result with millions of hits, 99% aren't going to be relevant. Most of those thousands of results on Newspapers.com aren't about to this topic. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 12:39, March 14, 2022 (UTC)
I'll add this, this, and this, where it at least notes that the rivalry did once "mean something." Again, I'm keeping this as "weak keep" because I acknowledge you make valid points, but there are sources out there that discuss this as a legitimate rivalry. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 19:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Coaches and players attempting to downplay the rivalry before their preseason game do not mean this is not a rivalry. On the contrary, all the attempts to downplay it suggest just how strong it is with the fans.[19][20][21] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 14 March 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! 23:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Fallis

[edit]
Brendan Fallis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable “DJ” and entrepreneur who fails to satisfy WP:NMUSIC and WP:ANYBIO respectively. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus WP:GNG is not met also. A before search shows hits predominantly in user generated sources which we don’t consider reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 19:09, 14 March 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of places of worship in North Paravur

[edit]
List of places of worship in North Paravur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Unsourced yellow page. Such a list can be created for every town, as there are temples in every street. Venkat TL (talk) 18:57, 14 March 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! 05:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stock market education

[edit]
Stock market education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too complicated for PROD. This does not seem to be an encyclopedia article, so much as a how-to guide, and I cannot identify sourcing about stock market education that isn't about the exams since it's such a broad term. I don't think a redirect to the licensing exams makes sense for the reader since it's such a vague term and not particularly mentioned there (and there's nothing worth merging). Thoughts? Star Mississippi 15:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:48, 14 March 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! 23:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Hadley

[edit]
Mount Hadley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no "Mount Hadley" in the Rockies, according to the USGS's Geographic Names Information System. There is a Hadley Point in Garfield County, Colorado, and it could be what the article creator was thinking of, but the rest is unverifiable. The article refs don't mention Hadley anything. PepperBeast (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, though this one isn't as fun, this could be a case of someone creating a wikipedia article to win an argument, which certainly used to happen a lot more in our earlier years. A famous example is a whole bio we had on Loretta Scott Crew, a fictional inventor of Smores, which made its way into real books.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loretta Scott Crew (2013).--Milowent • hasspoken 20:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Mount Fenimore" only gets around 42 Google hits and there is no indication there is a place with that name however note that original content was for "Mount Fenimore" it was created at Mount hadley and moved to Mount Hadley 5 minutes later by another uses. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:15, 18 March 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. given the state of NSPORTS, mostly and the lack of clear consensus on what the overarching guideline is. It could have been called nom withdrawn, but valid non keep vote from BilledMammal. I don't forsee consensus emerging after zero input following a relist seven days ago. Star Mississippi 01:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malika Auger-Aliassime

[edit]
Malika Auger-Aliassime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The player no longer meets notability guidelines per WP:NTENNIS and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #3. She has only participated in one WTA-level event and has not won any of the lower-level events. She is related to Félix Auger-Aliassime, who is a notable men's tennis player, but I'm not sure that makes her notable in isolation. Bonoahx (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:44, 14 March 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! 23:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Lane Ventures

[edit]
Fast Lane Ventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no substantive RS coverage of this company. Wikipedia should not used as an advertisement platform and homepage for businesses. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 14 March 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denis O'Conor Don

[edit]
Denis O'Conor Don (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see anything here meeting WP:BIO. His descent from a High King doesn't get him there, per WP:BIORELATED, and I don't see that his involvement in the Council of Chieftains assists either. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[As noted by Ljleppan, I closed this nomination prematurely, not taking Ceoil's vote into account, so I'm reinstating it here. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:01, 18 March 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. Consensus is that sourcing does not support an article Star Mississippi 01:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Groww

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Groww (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only funding and acquisition news. The whole content is a promo. Behind the moors (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Groww has significant coverage (beyond the funding news) across a wide range of sources. Below is the list that is relevant to this audience.
  • Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable sources and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization
  • As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two
  • WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, all are either regurgitated announcements and PR or rely entirely on interviews or other information provided by the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 17:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed response. However, going by your logic, most the Indian financial wiki pages (and I am sure other company pages) will have to be deleted - Angel Broking, Axis Direct, Dhani, Edelweiss, Finvasia, FundsIndia, Geojit Financial, Groww, HDFC securities, ICICIdirect, India Infoline, Karvy Corporate, Kotak Securities, Kuvera.in, Motilal Oswal, Scripbox, Reliance Securities, Religare, Sharekhan, Zerodha. Most of these companies do not need Wiki page. But I naively assumed that Wikipedia would benefit from information on them (atleast 10 years ago when I started it did!). Things seems to have changed a lot in last 10 years (for worse in my opinion). Anyway, good luck with your delete spree. I am out! Ashok Bhat (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion - certainly no company should "need" a wiki page. I understand you're disappointed with my !vote based on our guidelines but I've tried to provide you with detailed reasoning also. If this company was notable then I'm sure references that meet our criteria would exist - try to find references where an unaffiliated third party has written an analysis/opinion about the company. If you believe that those other companies also fail our criteria for notability and have checked their references, feel free to nominate those that fail your checks for deletion. HighKing++ 21:10, 21 March 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Onditi

[edit]
Francis Onditi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An associate professor. His google scholar profile says he was cited in total 142 times in all his works. Does not have significant coverage. Pikavoom Talk 14:58, 14 March 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 11:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Mars

[edit]
Flag of Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to Flag of Earth, there is no "Flag of Mars". The proposals are not individually notable; they are sourced primarily to their own promoters. None of them are credible efforts towards being generally accepted. Olchug (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, interesting that the request Earth Day flag redirects to the Ecology Flag, and not the flag that you had in mind, i. e. "Blue marble". --Olchug (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. It may need a little cleanup (as many articles do), but the concept of a Martian flag is a notable one. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 00:09, 20 March 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. While there are more "keep" !votes in number, only one gives a detailed reason for notability, and it has been refuted. Ultimately, the debate appears to have died owing to a lack of input. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore

[edit]
Wiki Loves Folklore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable event, Fails notability. Juggyevil (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/smagy7/wikipedia_2022_photography_competition_is_open/
  2. https://bhuntr.com/en/competitions/1gm2ueelheezqhprpk
  3. https://wikilovesfolklore.wikidonne.org/
  4. https://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2022-02-04/local-news/VCA-launches-cultural-programme-for-first-half-of-2022-6736240373
  5. https://stayhappening.com/e/wiki-loves-folklore-E10IF034VMQ
  6. https://allevents.in/mobile/amp-event.php?event_id=80001324712146
  7. https://wikimedia.ie/programme/wiki-loves-folklore-2022/
  8. https://www.ilmattino.it/AMP/societa/al_via_wiki_loves_folklore_italy_progetto_di_wikidonne_fotografia_scrittura-6478246.html
  9. https://www.vca.gov.mt/en/events/wiki-loves-folklore
  10. https://bhuntr.com/en/competitions/jeaqx7z01687bliu13
  11. https://goallevents.com/e/uslw-feminism-and-folklore-workshop-E800022050607358
  12. https://timebusinessnews.com/join-us-to-for-the-4th-edition-of-wiki-loves-folklore-as-we-celebrate-our-folk-culture/
  13. https://americanfolkloresociety.org/call-for-submissions-wiki-loves-folklore-photo-contest/
  14. https://futmax.org/2022/02/13/join-us-to-for-the-4th-edition-of-wiki-loves-folklore-as-we-celebrate-our-folk-culture/
  15. https://www.vilaweb.cat/noticies/un-nou-llibre-de-gegants-de-jan-grau-i-carles-freixes-al-fes-ta-festa/amp/
  16. https://americanfolkloresociety.org/cfp-wikipedia-writing-contest-on-feminism-and-folklore/
  17. https://festafesta.cat/
  18. https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/02/03/join-us-to-for-the-4th-edition-of-wiki-loves-folklore-as-we-celebrate-our-folk-culture/
  19. https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/02/15/take-a-step-forward-to-bridge-the-gender-gap-by-contributing-to-feminism-and-folklore-2022/
  20. https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/1489969580302872582?t=GnZ-D8amU6-TeBmx6eoTEw&s=19

--✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 09:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 12:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist: more source analysis, in depth in nature, would be beneficial here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:39, 14 March 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. OSE/uses these sources digression aside, there is consensus tha the sourcing does not support notability for this particular boxer Star Mississippi 01:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rolly Lambert Fogoum

[edit]
Rolly Lambert Fogoum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOX; WBO Africa is a minor regional title and the UBO is a lightly regarded organisation, neither are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment

Reference 1 is a stat site; reference 2 is an interview; reference 3 is a primary source from the WBO; reference 4 is probably the strongest source, but it's routine fight coverage; reference 5 is a passing mention; reference 6 is a primary source from the UBO; and reference 7 is a book listing.My BEFORE search (in English and French, Worldwide and Cameroon) found these same references along with routine fight coverage and this, which is an interview on a blog so does absolutely nothing for notability. Fails WP:GNG. 2.O.Boxing 10:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:37, 14 March 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 14:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Vexler

[edit]
Albert Vexler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPROF. Vanity page of a non-notable academic created and edited almost exclusively by WP:SPAs. It has been cleaned up a couple of years ago, but I think showing the previous state is relevant. Tercer (talk) 14:20, 14 March 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 !!!. ✗plicit 14:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Pope

[edit]
Tyler Pope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although he appears to have performed with numerous musical acts, he doesn't appear to be notable on his own. I wouldn't be against redirecting the article but I'm not sure where to redirect it to. It also doesn't help that the article looks like it was written in about five minutes; not to mention that there are two birth years listed for him. (I didn't notify the article creator because they haven't edited since 2013.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 12:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:37, 14 March 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. Star Mississippi 01:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Institute of Justice

[edit]
Jerusalem Institute of Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mainly sourced to own website - doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG Unbh (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment perhaps you could show some of these potential sources, since all I'm finding are passing mentions where the subject is not getting anything like WP:SIGCOVUnbh (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did. gidonb (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You added a single source which is not much more than a recycled press release with a vague reference to further"potential" sources. This is not enough.Unbh (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see a press release. Did you? gidonb (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 14 March 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 12:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genius Inter College, Bistupur

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Genius Inter College, Bistupur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES the notability guidelines for schools were made stricter in 2017, and this school doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:32, 14 March 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 13:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Erickson (screenwriter)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Carl Erickson (screenwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article lacks any reliable sources, and as far as I can tell has never had any. My search for information turned up no sources on this person. Wikipedia should not be built on sources like IMDb which we have ruled to be unreliable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"My search for information turned up no sources on this person". Did you follow Wikipedia procedure and complete a BEFORE search? When I did simply by clicking the links, I found the sources I added to the article. I'm sure I'd get more if I added information like the names of his coworkers (Curtiz, Borzage), wife, employer to a search. So it looks like you didn't complete the BEFORE or you didn't look at the sources that came up--more than I added, but the way, as some were redundant. Either way, this is a dysfunctional approach to AfD. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
John, your argument to delete is being countered and your statement you didn't find anything in a search when I found things just by clicking the "find sources" links are what we have addressed. No one has attacked you. In good faith I recommend you strike that particular word and consider replacing it with another in case someone (not me) makes a beef about it later. You started an AfD and you know how AfDs go. Your work will be critiqued. This is the way of things. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for withdrawing, John. I appreciate it. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 División de Honor

[edit]
2016–17 División de Honor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A season for a Regional Spanish League (Which does not have its own article! Info on it can be found at Divisiones Regionales de Fútbol in Andalusia#División de Honor) with no SIGCOV. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 12:50, 14 March 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. Views are split roughly between keeping outright or merging with divine providence. Since neither requires an administrator action, they can be done after this AfD closes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will of God

[edit]
Will of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article began as a confused attempt at a disambiguation page, and has since morphed into... something else. Three of the cited sources are Christian self-help books; the only other source, quoted in the Deism section, is more or less irrelevant, except that it happens to use the phrase "will of God" in an unrelated context. I can't find any scholarly works on this general subject. There's much that can be said about more specific concepts like predestination, divine providence, argument from free will, etc, but "the will of God" can't really be discussed in general terms. Dan from A.P. (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperbolick:, God's plan (small "p") already exists as a redirect to the article nominated here. I mentioned is not as an alternative title but to note that, if we do merge or redirect this article to Divine providence it will create a double redirect. There is also God's Plan (capital "P") that is a disambiguation page for a bunch of songs and some other theological concepts. That we have both is another argument for redirecting the small "p" article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May have misread your point. Thought you intended to move this to that title. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD was not properly transcluded to the new daily log at the last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:11, 14 March 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 13:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivi Kreen

[edit]
Ivi Kreen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

probably fails WP:SIGCOV Estopedist1 (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 14 March 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! 02:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes of Paraguay

[edit]
List of postal codes of Paraguay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY: consensus to delete "just a list of postal codes" articles demonstrated in previous AfDs ([23], [24]). asilvering (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought it was already decided to delete this. Anyway, the reason given for deletion is valid. Athel cb (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Athel cb This one had a declined PROD in 2011, so it had to go through AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Long

[edit]
Elijah Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like another AFD candidate, Jeff Gum (actor), Long was "Executive Producer" for both Rambo: Last Blood (24 Executive Producers) and Tesla (2020 film) (14 Executive Producers) and the page creator of this article (with 27 edits) has also voiced a Keep vote at the Jeff Gum AFD. I'm sensing both paid editing and some sockpuppetry but the bottom line is that I don't think Long meets WP:FILMMAKER or WP:AUTHOR. And I should probably file an SPI, too. Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:47, 14 March 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. Two relists brought zero input, and it does not appear further input is coming. Star Mississippi 01:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jenk Oz

[edit]
Jenk Oz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON: there is countless refspam arguabley 2/28 refs meet GNG Yogiile (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned the article into a short stub. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 13:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 14 March 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 International Velvet (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 11:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Velvet (song)

[edit]
International Velvet (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although the song has gained a cult following in Wales, there is not "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", as stated by WP:NSONGS. It has not charted, nor has it won any awards. All the information from the second paragraph can be easily worked into the article for the parent album, but the first paragraph is citing a user-generated lyrics site, so this information is not usable. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncle G: There's nothing wrong the redirect, and I'm supporting turning it back into a redirect. I brought it to AfD because there's some useful information in the article. Am I missing something? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:42, 14 March 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 Battle of Westerplatte. ✗plicit 11:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Henningsen

[edit]
Wilhelm Henningsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The mentions of Wilhelm Henningsen in reliable sources are just passing references to his command of this company of naval marines in this brief battle. He is not independently notable of this one attack, in which he died. WP:BIO1E applies. The page should redirect to the Battle of Westerplatte article where his exploits are amply explained. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:00, 14 March 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 12:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peeter Laud

[edit]
Peeter Laud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably fails WP:SIGCOV Estopedist1 (talk) 10:33, 14 March 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. North America1000 10:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie López (boxer)

[edit]
Eddie López (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable boxer/actor. Fails WP:NBOX. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:29, 14 March 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. if a merger target is created, happy to restore the history for merging. At the present time, there is none as an ATD Star Mississippi 01:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yevhen Malyshev

[edit]
Yevhen Malyshev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable soldier/athlete only notable for his death (WP:BIO1E). Doesn't pass WP:NSPORT either. Curbon7 (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to 2022 anti-war protests in Russia. consensus is this does not (yet) merit a standalone. Should that change once the war is not a current event, it can be spun back out. Star Mississippi 01:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Net voyne!

[edit]
Net voyne! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

“No to the war” seems about as original as “Fuck Joe Biden”. Not every wartime slogan automatically becomes the next “we shall fight on the beaches” or “day that will live in infamy”. Feels very much WP:TOOSOON, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS Dronebogus (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR has nothing to do with notability of topics, if anything at all it has to do with noteworthyness of some article contents, which, however, is subject to our normal article improvement process on article talk pages, not the topic of article deletion discussions.
WP:NOTNEWS #1 (Primary sources), #3 (Who's who) and #4 (Celebrity gossip and diary) do not apply as well. Many secondary sources are available even on an international level.
The only item that could potentially apply is #2 (News reports) which is about the question of enduring notability. However, the topic is not about announcements or breaking news, so it is not among topics we rule out in general. Given that the main event (Russia's invasion of Ukraine) is of extraordinary importance globally and any emerging protests in Russia are in the interest and focus of an international audience, and it has already been picked up as a theme by authors and artists, I think that enduring notability is given. This is the type of themes historians will continue to discuss and analyze in publications for long. White Rose, Edelweiss Pirates or Leipzig Meuten come to my mind, movements which are still a subject of historical research about 8 decades later - I consider any protest movements in Russia to be of similar enduring notability.
WP:GOOGLE is only a how-to page, neither policy nor guideline. It discusses how to perform "google searches" and how to interpret the results. This works both ways, we can use it to find information and to get a rough idea of usage statistics of certain terms, but we should be careful not to over-interpret those numbers. This is what experienced WP editors do anyway, so it brings nothing to the table which would be relevant to this discussion.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was a particularly good idea to start a separate merge discussion in the middle of an AfD discussion.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the slogan has already "taken off" enough to be discussed as a semantically distinguishable subtopic - besides the primary sources we already have many secondary sources meeting WP:RS on international level indicating notability for a stand-alone article.
Also, we must consider that the size of the potential merge target article is already at 156 KB right now. At this size we usually start to think about splitting out identifiable sub-topics into separate articles rather than merging even more into them.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:54, 18 March 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. Star Mississippi 01:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of incinerators in the United Kingdom

[edit]
List of incinerators in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY of mostly non-notable facilities, no evidence of WP:LISTN, and only list of its kind. Navigation is already provided by Category:Incinerators and Category:Waste power stations in the United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:28, 14 March 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 12:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Future ship project 21

[edit]
Future ship project 21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced sub-draft quality stub, barely improved since 2012. Dronebogus (talk) 05:16, 14 March 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. The "keep" opinions that consider that officers of a certain rank or position are automatically notable have no basis in policy and must be dismissed. But even without them there's rough consensus that a combination of high rank, the decorations to go with it, and coverage in the sources provided by Atchom among others are sufficient for notability in this case. Sandstein 14:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Samuel Townsend

[edit]
Cyril Samuel Townsend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Naval officer, fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Retired admirals are not inherently notable. Was a captain of the HMS Constance (1915) at the Battle of Jutland in 1916 (he gets a passing mention in this book [27]). Highest rank while in service, according to the "Dreadnought project wiki" (which bases itself on a primary source), seems to have been rear-admiral. He was promoted vice-admiral the day before he was put on the Retired List in 1929, and promoted to admiral while on the Retired List in 1933. Who's Who was unanimously classified as a generally unreliable source in a 2022 RfC, and the Dreadnought Project is a user-generated source. The other sources are all primary and searches for Cyril Samuel Townsend do not return anything close to an independent, reliable, secondary source with significant coverage. Therefore, none of the sources can count towards passing WP:BASIC. Seems to have received an obituary in the Daily Telegraph (to which I don't have access), but so do most civil servants and military officers. Pilaz (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article as it currently stands speaks for itself, but in case it doesn't, I submit this article clearly meets WP:BASIC (there are literally hundreds of articles about him in the standard newspaper databases, some of which is cited in the article. As a Companion of the Order of the Bath he also meets the additional criterion of WP:ANYBIO. He wasn't a run-of-the-mill officer: he was highly decorated for his part in two of the Royal Navy's most important engagements during WWI, and he was the head of a naval mission which was dismissed in highly publicized circumstances. In 1925, a national UK newspaper could write the following about him: "A well-known gunnery expert, he first came prominently before the public at the end of 1906..." (Daily News, 1 April 1925)
As a matter of fact, Pilaz admitted as much when he said "Seems to have received an obituary in the Daily Telegraph (to which I don't have access)" - anyone with an obituary in one of the UK's national newspapers can be presumed to be notable, absent compelling circumstances (although I appreciate his frankness in admitting he didn't actually read it). His claim that "most civil servants and military officers" get an obituary in a national newspaper of record is obviously wrong on even a second's reflection.
Two final points for the record: The Dreadnought Project is not an open-edit Wiki but is regularly used by reputable scholars in the secondary literature. There was a recent request for comment which ended somewhat inconclusively, but I am happy to revisit the issue in an appropriate forum. As to the UK version of Who's Who, on another AfD discussion several commentators expressed some incredulity that a badly advertised and very recent RfC, initiated by Pilaz himself, upturned years of consensus around that particular source, which is part of the Wikipedia Library. I fully intend to reopen the issue at some later time in a community discussion, but for out present purposes it suffices to say that this article stands even without either of those sources. Atchom (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Several points and questions:
  1. You claim that I did not do WP:BEFORE, despite providing my personal evaluation of sources found in Google Books (since newspaper sources are lacking given that the subject died in 1949). On what grounds?
  2. You claim that this is for "getting back at you", but as it turns out, I found this article by using insource:ukwhoswho.com, as I am trying to implement the unanimous consensus found at RSN regarding Who's Who. Your claims that I am WP:HOUNDING you are not made in good faith, especially since you are probably aware that you've been creating permanent microstubs with two citations, one of which is always to Who's Who, for a very long time now. If you start a search using the search parameter above, and sort by creation date, 4 out of the last 20 pages created are yours: Laurence Eliot Power, Francis Murray Austin, Herbert Arthur Buchanan-Wollaston, and Marshal Llewelyn Clarke. Your Wikipedia stubs do not have immunity from community scrutiny.
  3. "Several commentators at another AfD expressed some incredulity" is just you and another editor, which you conveniently omit to mention (link to the AfD in question, probably worth not omitting either).
  4. Content on Dreadnought Project is user-generated and is therefore not acceptable to demonstrate notability. It also doesn't link to secondary sources, but to primary sources.
  5. Do the articles you've linked to provide WP:SIGCOV? Since you seem to have access to them, could you copy the relevant passages to this discussion? Pilaz (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vice Admiral is the highest rank a Greek navy officer can normally achieve until the present day, unless becoming CHOD or being a royal prince, and was a very rare achievement in the past. Even the chiefs of the naval general staff during Townsend's tenure had lower ranks, being captains or rear admirals ([28]). This was deliberate practice, so that the head of the naval mission be hierarchically superior to all Greek officers and face no obstacles on that account. So during his service in Greece, he was the hierarchically senior Greek navy officer, de facto equivalent to the chief of the service. Constantine ✍ 10:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He was not vice-admiral but rear-admiral while in Greece (1925-1926; he became vice-admiral in 1929). He was at any rate outranked by "admiral" (in reality vice-admiral) Miaoulis, who was also the Minister of Marine of Greece. The British mission was composed of only 7 officers, and Townsend never held a prominent role, since his assignment was to set up the Staff College of the Navy, which was shut down a year later. [29] At any rate, it doesn't matter because we don't have a subject-specific notability guideline for soldiers, but we do have the GNG. So let's try to focus on that instead. Pilaz (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, yes, please lecture me on the history of my country... Miaoulis died in 1835 (!). The Minister of Naval Affairs under Pangalos was first Alexandros Hatzikyriakos, who was a retired rear admiral. His successor, Botasis, was mostly a diplomat, having served in embassies as naval attache. And the Ministry did not hold command over the fleet, it mostly handled personnel matters, funding, etc. And oh, look! The school Townsend helped establish still exists (under different name of course)! Which of course, as you say, is neither here nor there concerning notability, but just for the sake of setting the record straight... As for notability, if any national-level MP or ambassador is notable, then any head of a national navy or foreign person who has held equivalent position is also notable. He definitely appears to have been in the news enough... Constantine ✍ 17:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Cplakidas, I was careless and linked to the wrong Miaoulis: I meant to link to Athanasios N. Miaoulis, not Andreas Miaoulis. Athanasios Miaoulis is described as Admiral here, serving from November 1924 to June 1925 (source). Regardless, it is incorrect to state that Townsend was the de facto co-head of the Greek Navy (no source makes this assertion). And do not worry, ambassadors aren't inherently notable, nor are any head of a national navy or foreign person who has held equivalent position. Members of national legislatures only benefit from WP:NPOL, since WP:SOLDIER and WP:DIPLOMAT have been removed. All must strive to meet the WP:GNG to be considered notable. Pilaz (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 03:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks on the Wall

[edit]
Ducks on the Wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet criteria at WP:NSONG, not notable enough to warrant its own article as a single. -Liancetalk/contribs 02:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found one more book now from before 1998 and added information from it, although I only have limited access to it. Rlendog (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Soap Opera (album). Stifle (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Romance

[edit]
Holiday Romance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet criteria at WP:NSONG, not notable enough to warrant its own article as a single. -Liancetalk/contribs 02:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 03:15, 21 March 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! 02:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Scott (field hockey)

[edit]
Duncan Scott (field hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Not enough significant coverage in reliable third-party sources to meet notability requirements. JTtheOG (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 14 March 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! 02:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Elderly Support Organization (WAQAR)

[edit]
Saudi Elderly Support Organization (WAQAR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. The sources are self-source, Saudi government sources or to propaganda outlets for the Saudi regime (such as Arab News). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:17, 14 March 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. Despite the long discussion it seems that nobody is actively in favor of keeping this. Sandstein 14:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Cat Branch

[edit]
Wild Cat Branch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Complete failure of WP:V. Not mentioned in the GNIS under any name. The archived source, [30], states that it bottoms out in "Judah Creek", which also doesn't exist on GNIS. Checking GNIS topo maps in the townships named in that source shows two streams with completely different names. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 14 March 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 01:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Takaful Charity Foundation

[edit]
Takaful Charity Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. The only sources in the article is the organization itself and 'Arab News', which is a propaganda outlet for the Saudi government. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:06, 14 March 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 01:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Villalta

[edit]
Ronald Villalta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 00:28, 14 March 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.
More