< September 11	September 13 >

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1954 Bowman Football Card Set[edit]

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

Prod was disputed by creator; zero reliable sources to demonstrate how these meet general notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and American football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My first reaction was that it would all fall under WP:OR, and based on the article it is easy to see how anyone would presume that, and admittedly a lot of basic web searches directed me to collector/auction sites. But then I did a search in Google Books that returned an impressive batch of sources that appear to be third party about the history and business of sports card collecting. I have to be straight-up: now I'm not so sure. Notability isn't what I think it is... it's what reliable sources think it is. There's some reliable sources to plow through and I hope the community teams up to get this done. It could still go either way in my book.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't doubt the general notability of Bowman Gum, but even looking through some of those book results (one of the first entries being a self-published book), I'm not seeing significant coverage of this particular set. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it had rookie card George Blanda, but I am not educated on what is important enough to be an article with card sets, so take this with a grain of salt. Sportsfangnome (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am the creator. I am pretty sure I can add info to this despite creating it. I would obviously like to keep it, but not just because I created it, but also because I believe this set is very notable. The 1954 Bowman Football set features tons of important cards - especially George Blanda's RC. I added the price guides because of the fact that there is information inside the price guides as they have a short summary or description of the set. Also, I know there are a lot of other good sources. The problem is, this was my first article, & I was not so good at citing. I will be finding more reliable sources soon. I am happy with one of the above comments saying that there is a good amount of sources on Google Books... I will soon be looking through that as well. I am fairly new & still getting the hang of it, so I will be fixing it. One more thing, I would like to point out that most of the players in these sets have their own Wikipedia articles, & some even have pictures of them on the 1954 cards. So, I think that could be a good reason. Just adding some perspective, however. Ulysses Grant Official (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I just added two references, & none of them are just simple price guides. I am hoping this is fine, but I can find more sources if it is needed. Ulysses Grant Official (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, I say Keep. There are two pieces of coverage that cover the topic "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (SIGCOV) which means the 1954 Bowman Football Card Set passes the general notability guideline with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." For the two pieces of SIGCOV, see 1954 Bowman Football Set Offered Unique Design from Sports Collectors Daily and The 1954 Bowman Football Set, Where's Johnny? from PSA Magazine. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, Keep is my position on this one from a pure notability standpoint. I want to note that my position in this discussion does not mean we should automatically approve notability for similar collections and years.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the 1954 Bowman football set is notable based on two profiles in card-collecting publications, then the same notability analysis would also extend to hundreds of baseball, football, hockey and basketball card sets over the last 100-plus years. Up to now, we haven't had such articles. I'm not sure if the proliferation of such articles is good for the encyclopedia. Maybe it's ok, just not sure. Cbl62 (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There may indeed need to be a "greater discussion" down the road.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:22, 15 September 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 Zaprešić#Public safety. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zaprešić Volunteer Fire Department[edit]

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

Single-sourced article about a smalltown volunteer fire department. As always, fire departments are a fairly run of the mill topic: there are many, many thousands or possibly even millions of them in the world, and they all do more or less the same things, so they cannot all be "inherently" notable enough to have Wikipedia articles just for existing. Rather, making a fire department notable enough for inclusion requires writing and sourcing some genuine substance for why this fire department might credibly be significantly more notable than most other fire departments.
But this article does nothing of the sort, just writing that it exists, cataloguing its fleet of vehicles and then single-sourcing the whole thing to just one chapter of a local history book, which is not enough sourcing to get the topic over WP:GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Croatia. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you open the Wikipedia article Zaprešić, where this particular FD is listed, it is written that this FD is one of oldest of its kind in Croatia. Besides, English Wikipedia has zero articles about Croatian fire departments from what I can see. Franjo Tahy (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zaprešić#Public safety per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 08:20, 19 September 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.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cenyu Han[edit]

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

Teenage racing driver competing in minor events. A WP:BEFORE search brings up very little coverage, with this pair of routine announcements in Formula Scout being the only sources I can find which amount to anything more than passing mentions, such as this Portugese-language article which gives Han a single sentence of coverage, or numerous cases where Han's name appears only in results tables with no prose coverage. A user who can read Chinese may be able to find additional coverage which establishes notability, however. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and China. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Some small signs of WP:SIGCOV but not enough to warrant a page yet. He currently isn’t notable enough, but could potentially be in the future, and by drafting the page, the page could be created easily in the future when he is more notable, since it’s currently a bit of WP:TOOSOON. DRYT.Motorsport (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak draftify — All I could find was [1] and [2], everything in European outlets looks like simple WP:ROUTINE announcements. Someone who speaks Chinese might be able to tell us whether these two are WP:SIGCOV or not, and perhaps find more sources. For now I'm hesitantly leaning towards draftify–he's probably a case of WP:TOOSOON but there's decent WP:POTENTIAL to meet NSPORT in the near future, not because of talent but because of wealth (he's loaded). MSport1005 (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft WP:TOOSOON. Incubate. X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 02:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
1. Zhang, Yanling 张燕玲 (2017-08-28). Yang, Haicheng 杨海成 (ed.). "赛车场奏起中国国歌南京少年向"F1梦想"进发" [The Chinese national anthem is played at the racetrack, Nanjing teenager set off to the "F1 dream"]. Yangtse Evening Post (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.
  This is an extensive profile of Cenyu Han. When translated from Chinese to English using Google Translate, the article is 1,619 words long. The article notes from Google Translate: "In 2013, Cenyu Han, who was only 8 years old, fell in love with the sport, which also surprised his father. Cenyu Han recalled that he and his father went to the professional track in Shanghai to experience it, and as a result, he became very interested. "It's a very special feeling, seeing a karting is like a long-lost friend." On the evening of August 25, Cenyu Han made such an image metaphor in an interview with a reporter from Ziniu News. Out of strong interest, whenever he had spare time, Cenyu Han begged his father to take him to the Shanghai go-kart track to practice. When Cenyu Han expressed his willingness to persevere, his father did not hesitate at all. He contacted Andrea, an Italian professional driver, who came to Shanghai twice a month to give Cenyu Han professional guidance."
2. Motorsport.com editorial staff (2021-03-09). "F4: Cenyu Han 'McQueen' rimane con VAR per il 2021" [F4: Cenyu Han 'McQueen' remains with VAR for 2021]. Motorsport.com (in Italian). Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Cenyu Han, nicknamed "McQueen", made his F4 debut in 2020. It was a year dedicated to learning and preparing for his second season in Formula 4. Before moving on to single-seaters, the McQueen of Nanjing (China) competed at a high level in the international karting scene. ... The sixteen-year-old "McQueen", who lives in Milan, is ready to continue his journey in single-seater racing. His main focus will be on the Italian F4 series, which will kick off on the Paul Ricard circuit of Le Castellet. In order to optimize track time, Han will also add selected rounds of the ADAC German F4 Championship to his schedule."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cenyu Han (simplified Chinese: 韩岑宇; traditional Chinese: 韓岑宇) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted the Italian Motorsport.com article bought up by Cunard as either being a reprinted press release (the Italian edition of Motorsport.com sometimes posts those) or an interview, which I am unsure would count as independent coverage under the WP:GNG. My Italian is extremely poor so I may be misunderstanding the content and context of that article, however. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did searches for quotes from the Motorsport.com article and did not find any evidence that the article came from a press release or interview. The article says the author is "Motorsport.com editorial staff". Cunard (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft The first source is excellent, but that's where it stops. The second one posted by Cunard is an obvious press release rearrangement (just like the coverage found in my searches and in the article) of a WP:ROUTINE event, all while heavily relying on PR quotes. He might meet relevant guidelines (including WP:NMOTORSPORT) in the future, but not now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and incubate WP:TOOSOON Bruxton (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KY-3[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A few passing mentions found, but nothing more (and nothing that comes from WP:RS, either). The article is completely unsourced too, so I don't think it would be a good idea to merge it with secure telephone, contrarily to the editor who deprodded it. A redirect could be an option however. BilletsMauves^€500 18:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Search Google Books and open library finds quite a few information security/cryptographic books have talked about, perhaps the two best examples are:

Information Security Management Handbook Volume IV, Harold Tipton, 2019. gbook By the 1960s, the KY-3 came to market as one of the first practical voice encryption devices.
A Brief History of Cryptology, J. V. Boone, 2005. archive.org link p. 83 and later. The KY-3 voice encryption system was still too large and power-hungry for graceful tactical field use and was not intended for that purpose, but it did gain acceptance in a wide variety of office-like applications. It was specified in detail by NSA engineers and produced by the Bendix Corporation.

I'll try my best to incorporate those and a few other references to the article soon, if no one else does it before. Skynxnex (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Due to sources found and possible improvements referred to as a Heymann. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously highly notable and instrumental. Plenty of information available. Will try and find time to expand. Mr.weedle (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to The Commoners' New Forest. As this is a somewhat unusual result, it is hoped that a participant here will take care of making the article fit the new title. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

F. E. Kenchington[edit]

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

Can find virtually nothing about Kenchington (apart from WP mirror sites), and no reviews. Fails and WP:AUTHOR. Edwardx (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure there's enough for Wikipedia but he's quoted in the OED under softly (sub required); H L Menken in The America Language refers to a review of The Commoners' New Forest which was published in the Times Literary Supplement in 1944; there was a review of his book in the Folkestone, Hythe, Sandgate & Cheriton Herald "Hythe's Man Valuable Work". He seems to have died in 1992 but I couldn't find any obituaries, someone with access to newspapers.com might be able to find more Piecesofuk (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Newspapers.com (pinging Piecesofuk): there are a few more book reviews (The Observer, The Guardian, Western Mail) but no obituaries or biographical coverage. I also have access to the Times Literary Supplement review, which I think is roughly the same length as the Observer review. (I'd be happy to send a copy to anyone who'd like one; just email me.) I'd be glad to reconsider if something else turns up, but as it stands I'm thinking that the book is notable (based on the reviews and WP:NBOOK) but that Kenchington is not. The current article could easily be restructured as an article about the book, so a good alternative to deletion would be to keep and move to The Commoners' New Forest, leaving the current title as a redirect. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to The Commoners' New Forest per above.4meter4 (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso crema effect[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and tagged for notability since 2011 — the only usage in Google Scholar are Tschegg (2009) and a passing mention in another article which references Tschegg; the other reference does not mention this topic. Was redirected (inappropriately) in 2009 to Espresso by Materialscientist (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Archaeology. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources demonstrating notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established after ten years.--Srleffler (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with glossary of archaeology per WP:NOTDIC and WP:ATD. – Joe (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources are for the Tschegg article, I think he may have come up with the term, but it never caught on. Two hits in GScholar, this article and one in Spanish. Nothing in Jstor. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 13 September 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!} 21:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Tieri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Music. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my search doesn't turn up anything, even about American Idol, though that wouldn't make them notable anyways. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was probably a promotional page at the time, but she fizzled out and I get nothing for her for sourcing. Well this [3] trading card. Only other stuff is her music on the various streaming sources, non-notable here for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant independant coverage to WP:GNG. Don't see how would meet WP:NMUSICIAN either. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly a promotional page for someone who got very minor media notice a couple of decades ago. Even then it was non-significant and she has even less evidence for notability now. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the others suggested, this is appears to be an outdated promotional article for someone with a lack of proper coverage. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pomotional content tone and is not properly sourced to WP:RS to pass WP:NMUSIC. Fabiobengario (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. It has not received significant coverage in reliable sources.--Assyrtiko (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO Bruxton (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Domain (2016 film)[edit]

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

Possible non-notable film. Lack of notable sources in the article and none can be found when a search was done. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews in LA Times [4] and Cleveland Plain Dealer [5], as well as several other critic reviews at Rotten Tomatoes [6] DonaldD23 talk to me 22:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Donaldd23, and I'd add the Ars Technica review and Sight & Sound blurb to the mix as well. (Disclosure: I created the article.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discovered reviews by Donald. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LA Times is a notable source in the article alongside with others sources (WP:RS) that demonstrate notability. Fabiobengario (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Fabris[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Has a publication with over 1000 cites on Google Scholar (over 1/4 of total), but was one of many authors. Awards aren't sufficient to show notability either. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial and increasing citations warrant pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her papers have many coauthors, but even the first-author papers have citation counts 159, 142, 96, etc. I think that's enough for WP:PROF#C1. Our article is out of date; she appears to have a full professorship at the Polytechnic University of Turin [7] [8]. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 14 September 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. Participants should be aware that drafts can be speedily deleted if they are not edited in a rolling 6-month period. Waggers TALK 09:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Kansas Storm[edit]

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

BEFORE search only found sources consisting of WP:ROUTINE coverage/passing mentions and a bunch of Dodge City Daily Globe articles (see cite 3 in article) and republications of it. Does not appear to meet GNG or any of the sports notability guidelines. Asking for consensus to Draftify the article as it is likely to become notable in the future. Justi yaya 19:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Kansas. Justi yaya 19:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say keep since this a new team of a present conference so there won't be so much information. Sportsfangnome (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: a final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could have sworn I commented much earlier. This one's a clear delete as failing WP:GNG -- the three sources provided (two which are busted links) don't tell us much and the league is far from a top tier professional league. Probably be fun to go to a game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Team was just founded this year. Likely to be notable in the future. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per User:BeanieFan11's comments above and per WP:TOOSOON. Also redirect this page in mainspace to Champions Indoor Football until there is suitable content for the team to have its own page. Frank Anchor 20:18, 14 September 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 Harrison, Ohio. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. John the Baptist Harrison[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE reveals no independent sourcing. Parish and school fail WP:GNG; no reasonable expectation of additional notability. Pbritti (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Ohio. Pbritti (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not on the NRHP, it's just an old church/parish. I find no sources. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the school to Harrison, Ohio, adding a new section on churches. No doubt a typical church and school and not notable enough to require a separate article, but merger to the place is a viable alternative to complete deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Harrison, Ohio as above, not enough coverage for a standalone article imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:31, 18 September 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. Clear WP:SNOW. Any concerns related to COI should be handled at the article itself. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron DeJong[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. Entry appears to be vanity page or self-promotion. Robsontagh (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC) *Delete for now. This subject doesn't seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN, given that he wasn't in a state-wide office, but in a state assembly. Also, WP:BEFORE search doesn't bring up enough (IMO) to satisfy general notability guidelines. If sources are found, please ping me and I would reconsider. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 19:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spf121188: WP:POLITICIAN specifically states that members of state-level legislatures are included. GPL93 (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Hampshire. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Passes WP:NPOL as a member of a state legislature. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93, I must have misunderstood WP:NPOL, I was thinking state-wide office didn't include state assemblies; I should have read that a little closer. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 19:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's written in kind of a wonky way, so I totally see how it could be misinterpreted. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep Member of a state legislature. Passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of neighborhoods in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Academie, Indiana[edit]

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

This is another one presenting searching issues due to the French and to scanning errors in the case of GBook hits, but it's another that was put on the maps after GNIS, and there is just nothing there except a rail line which isn't there anymore either. As the post office went away some years before the early 1900s (which, I would guess, is when RFD started in the area), that tends to argue against the importance of the place; at any rate, I found nothing even suggesting this was anything but a rail location. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect (as ATD) to Fort Wayne or List of neighborhoods in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The location on Google map shows an unnamed neighborhood or subdivision. The post office was apparently open less than two years. Any history that can be verified might enhance another article but a glorified dictionary entry is not encyclopedic. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of neighborhoods in Fort Wayne, Indiana, as it appears to be within municipal borders. Djflem (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that anyone now or earlier considered this a neighborhood of Fort Wayne? I didn't see any. Mangoe (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't run across RS's on any history but the area is currently considered part of Fort Wayne. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added Notes: The best I could find is not likely reliable as a genealogy reference that states: Academie, township Washington, date 1874, ghost town, with the note; "Academie was located on the Lake Shore Railroad, but never developed". Added note; link is editor added for reference that a spur or branch line dropped south from the main line into Fort Wayne (likely much smaller in area), through the subject vicinity that could have been a water stop. While likely not considered reliable it is most probably accurate and furthers that a redirect might be preferable to deletion. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Search aid. If one goes to Newspapers.com, searches for Academie, and limits the search location to Allen County, Indiana, they will find a number of articles about Academie, including a bunch of things about St Vincent's church in Academie, arrests, weddings and deaths, a school that opened in 1909, a saloon fight in 1882. Searching this way should facilitating cutting through the endless mentions of the Academie Francais and allow the researcher to make an informed decision on the notability of this subject under either/or WP:GEOLAND / WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 10:13, 19 September 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!} 20:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ATM (2015 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar to Amanusha, a film does not warrant an article in Wikipedia simply because Jackie Shroff is in the film. This low-key film, despite releasing in 2015, has no reliable reviews such as from The Times of India. Although listed as an unreliable source at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force, almost every Malayalam film that is notable is reviewed by Nowrunning. Surprisingly, Nowrunning did not review the film. Found a review from Nettv4u.com but it is listed as unreliable at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Out of the sources on the page, the only reliable sources are this and this (although the second one is just a release summary). A Google search of the Malayalam name gives nothing. The reliability of Mollywood Times is not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force so it could be unreliable. Out of the sources from the past AFD, this source is a copy of the Sify source, this source is a passing mention and this source loads nothing. The previous AfD says that "any Jackie Shroff movie that has hit theaters is also notable" but sorry I beg to differ.

In summary, a film released in 2015 should at least get two reliable reviews. DareshMohan (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable reviews found to pass NFILM requirements. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab207 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Found no usable sources in search. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:19, 16 September 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!} 20:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Kuznetsova[edit]

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

Okay so this is weird, but bear with me...: there are two different models named Anastasia Kuznetsova. Neither of them meet the guidelines of notability. The girl pictured here is named Anastasia Kuznetsova but is not even of the one in the models this article is ostensibly referring to. Upon further research, the reference to models.com is the correct person for this article, but unsurprisingly they have linked an interview the other Russian model Anastasia Kuznetsova at the very bottom of the page; in it, the other girl said she would love to work for Victoria's Secret yet the correct one already walked in the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show show in 2009, which the template on the Wikipedia article displays. On social media, the correct girl's Instagram is called @tomachella, linked on the Models.com profile on the righthand side, whereas the other girl's Instagram, linked in the interview, is @anastasia.kuz, which helps you see they are two different people. Not only that, these women are two different ages and their careers started at totally different times. The models.com profile lists her as signed to Women Management in Milan, but it's the other girl who is (which you can see here. While at first glance they may look alike, the correct Anastasia has a cleft chin and doesn't have green eyes or brown hair). That being said, it doesn't take an expert to surmise that neither of them meet the requirements of notability to try to rescue this article. Trillfendi (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above explanation, simply being a model isn't enough. I can't find much for sourcing for either of them, routine work-related photos and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 12 September 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 Carboniferous. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carboniferous-Earliest Permian Biodiversification Event[edit]

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

I proposed a merger with Carboniferous earlier, but that seems to have gotten no response. The article is essentially regurgiating almost verbatim the conclusions of a single paper Carboniferous-earliest Permian marine biodiversification event (CPBE) during the Late Paleozoic Ice Age published in Earth Science Reviews last year, which was the paper that coined the term "Carboniferous-Earliest Permian Biodiversification Event", which has only been used since by one other article in a brief mention. It's perhaps fine to create an article about a species based on the single paper that described it, but for a supposed major ecological event I would expect a body of literature on the topic, as there is for the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event, see search results on scholar. Given that the other references on this page are just for background info and not about the supposed event itself, I think it is WP:TOOSOON for it to pass the WP:GNG. Maybe some of the relevant material can be merged into Late Paleozoic icehouse. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also would agree to merging into Carboniferous like I originally suggested and as as per the below comments. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is very odd. Google Scholar shows only two articles, as you say, but Google shows a number of scholarly sources. Can you take a look at [9] and say what you think. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Im seeing a single additional reference to the concept in the 2022 book The Carboniferous Timescale on page 212-213, but the relevant text is only maybe a paragraph and simply repeats the conclusions of the 2021 paper. We need more than passing references for this to be a notable concept. The other sources are either Wikipedia mirrors or mirrors of the papers previously mentioned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this one, but I agree with you. It is too early to know whether the concept will get wide accesptance. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Carboniferous and shorten dramatically. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selected text into Carboniferous as TOOSOON. As noted above, virtually no literature, and no sustained press coverage either. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge - relevant content but as noted, functionally single-sourced. This should be briefly treated in context, not spread out into a special-POV article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:29, 19 September 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 Slievecallan at least for now. If a list article is created, the article history will remain, so a merge can be done and the redirect target updated at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Slievecallan windfarm[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 14:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. Just redirect to Slievecallan. As an alternative to deletion. And as redirects are cheap. There are over 300 wind farms in Ireland. They are not all notable. And this one doesn't appear any more notable than any other. (The coverage being of the "applied for planning", "planning objected", "planning progressed", "project completed" variety common for any other large structure. Certainly WP:NBUILD doesn't seem to be met.) While, to my read, a standalone article isn't warranted (on notability terms), creating a simple redirect seems the most pragmatic course here. Guliolopez (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

just delete it Is every windfarm notable? No. How is this one different from the typical windfarm> It isn't different; at least, the article makes no such claim. Does a town/whatever need text saying there's a windfarm nearby? No. Mangoe (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is not even correct with its claim that it is "between the parishes of Inagh and Miltown Malbay". The Banner talk 18:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~(or "Keep and rename and expand") to List of windfarms in Ireland (currently a redirect, article should be created).~~ This has content substantial enough for a row in a list-article, as do other articles in Category:Wind farms in the Republic of Ireland (and perhaps some of those could/should be merged also). It is fine for this to be closed with merge instructions given at its page, even though implementing those instructions is not trivial. At AFD we are obligated to consider reasonable wp:ATD alternatives to deletion, and this is an obvious and good one. --Doncram (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is List of wind farms in the Republic of Ireland already existing. Merge to it, including discussion about permitting difficulties and ownership, which should go into a new "Notes" column in the table. There is advantage to covering a topic like this in a list-article of many of its type, putting it into context, so reader can see how big this is relative to others, etc. Add a link to its row, using anchor set by "id=Slievecallan" or similar on the row, from the Slievecallan article. --Doncram (talk) 23:21, 19 September 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 undeletion of these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2005 FCSL season[edit]

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

Minor collegiate regional league season. Doesn't meet WP:NSEASONS and doesn't meet [[WP::GNG]]. Mikeblas (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also these additional seasons for the same league:

-- Mikeblas (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (all): Per Nom. Fails GNG and WP:NSEASONS. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:14, 15 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Smith (royal servant)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contentious BLP that fails WP:BASIC. The article is hard to verify info, particularly since it allegation has been withdrawn. Fails WP:1E and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 16:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete per BLP considerations. As it stands it's entirely a coatrack for unsubstantiated claims about other people. Mangoe (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. I don't understand how this page was recreated after the previous AFD soft delete which only closed 5 days ago. Mztourist (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's dead, but the claims are BLPs and there's by far insufficient sourcing. SALT if needed to protect against re-creation, although a soft deletion has more leeway. Star Mississippi 16:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I see is heresay with not enough sources. EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:32, 17 September 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. There is no clear consensus, after over a month. Restructuring can still be discussed outside of AfD. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal poets laureate in Alberta[edit]

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

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

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

Messy and poorly-sourced lists of people on a distinction that is not an "inherently" notable role in its own right. Being poet laureate of a city or town does not automatically guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia in and of itself -- I'll grant that some of the people here are notable for other reasons (e.g. Griffin Prize or Governor General's Literary Award nominations), but they aren't notable for this reason per se, and many more of the people listed here just have no meaningful notability claims at all.
And the sourcing for the lists comprises a mixture of one-off local-interest "poet laureate announced" coverage from the local newspapers of the cities that appointed them and primary sources (such as the self-published websites of the city governments that made the appointments) that aren't support for notability. All of which just makes these lists less than useful, if the sourcing and even the notability of the people themselves is so wobbly and inconsistent. And for added bonus, the creator of these also comprehensively copy-pasted all of the exact same information directly into poet laureate itself, where it potentially constitutes WP:UNDUE weight since it makes the Canada section a lot longer than almost any other section in the entire article.
So there would be nothing wrong with listing a city's or town's official poets laureate in each city's article (or a spinoff article about that specific city's poet laureate position, so long as it could be sourced properly), but there's no need for provincewide omnibus lists on this basis. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Poetry, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I added and researched information about Canadian poets laureate to [[poet laureate]] because the United States actually had the most coverage on that article which isn’t fair to other countries. The article is still very North American centric. I was trying to make the coverage equal. I am not Canadian. Poetry is such a niche genre of art that it does not receive the amount of media coverage that musicians or actors do, but these people are still active and notable in their genre of art or they wouldn’t have received such a title in the first place. At the very least there should be a list of them on Wikipedia even if individuals alone may not make the news enough. Do what you want with the individual articles. I can format them differently with bullet lists if you think it looks messy, but I won’t make that effort if it’s going to be deleted anyways. Kiddo27 (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding these folks to individual city articles also runs the risk of having them removed, since the great majority of poets laureate do not have articles on Wikipedia, and some cities and provinces have only had one lifetime appointee. I’ve created articles in the past for individual laureates only for someone to say the city they represented wasn’t big enough as a reason to remove the article. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juanita Martin which is why I opted for a list this time. Kiddo27 (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NLIST. MB 18:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean; see Municipal poets laureate in Ontario#Mississauga for an example of a cleanup.

Yes, the individual poets are often not individually notable, but collectively their position is. Simply remove the red links.

Bearcat, the suggestion to put this information in the article of a city itself strikes me as disingenuous. Edmonton's section on its city council is maybe 200 words at most, this would create undue weight on the poet laureate, and immediately be scrapped there. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason the content about Edmonton City Council in Edmonton itself is short is because Edmonton City Council has its own separate spinoff article to contain the bulk of the information about it, meaning that it isn't necessary to reduplicate all of the same information in the city's main article because there's already a separate article to cover it in depth. So one sentence listing poets laureate would hardly be undue weight just because the city council is spun off to a standalone article instead of having paragraphs and paragraphs of extended text in the city's article. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -there's some non-GNG references in the articles. But that's not an obstacle to the articles existing. There's easily 3 very good sources, and no explanation of why having omnibus articles for each province is problematic; though there's no prejudice to merging all to Municipal poets laureate in Canada. Three good sources are one, two, and three. Nfitz (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The primary purpose of a Wikipedia list is to help people find Wikipedia articles — so a "list of X" should generally only ever exist if X is itself inherently notable enough that a landslide majority of the names in the list also have (or could have) their own separate biographical articles for the list to link to. A list should not exist if it's just going to be a nest of permanently redlinked or unlinked names. And since "municipal poet laureate of a city" is not an "inherent" notability criterion that would get a poet a Wikipedia article in and of itself if they didn't also have other stronger notability claims alongside it, that means the majority of the people named in these lists simply aren't ever going to have articles at all.

And even if "municipal poet laureate of a city" were grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, what possible reason would there be why omnibus lists by province were necessary instead of standalone "Municipal poet laureate of [Specific City]" articles? Why would "by province" be the most useful level at which to organize content about a municipal role? Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, an interesting point. But doesn't that mean we should also get rid of List of mayors in Canada and every other article in Lists of mayors by country? Nfitz (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:11, 12 September 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!} 20:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Man Film Festival[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and semi-advertorialized article about a film festival, not making any strong claim to passing our notability criteria for events. The only discernible notability claim here is that the event exists (or possibly used to exist but no longer does, because it hasn't been updated since 2015), which is not an instant free notability pass in the absence of third party coverage about it in reliable sources. As I don't have very solid access to decade-old British media coverage, I'd be more than happy to withdraw this if somebody in the UK can find enough solid sourcing to salvage it -- but as written, nothing in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have any sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, not notable and written like an advertisement. --ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have attempted to search newspaper sources for significant coverage. No dice. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:06, 19 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lawton C. Johnson[edit]

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

School administrator in a town of 21,000. No significant coverage outside of obituaries/memorials. Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: local coverage only, does not meet WP:GNG. Melcous (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a dedicated employee and getting a local middle school named after you for it are not really enough for Wikipedia notability, and all we really have in the way of reliable in-depth coverage that could go beyond that is a non-paid obituary in the local newspaper. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage to meet the general notability guideline. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:40, 15 September 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. Seems to be a rather strong consensus to weakly keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ironsworn[edit]

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

Can't find reliable sources for this game. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Neutral. It is borderline, but there are two full reviews from Polygon (website), see here, which is RS per WP:VG/RS, and Tabletop Gaming (probably RS IMO, though there isn't consensus yet on the BTG sources), and both are SIGCOV. Winning a well known award (ENNIE Awards) with a WP article is also convincing. Interview available from Dicebreaker, but it's non-SIGCOV. IMO there might be 2 or 3 refs counting towards WP:GNG, yes, it's borderline, but I'm going to go with weak keep or neutral. VickKiang (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the award and the reviews clearly establish WP:N. I'm not sure what the nomination has qualms about, WP Notability is not in question here.

Also, this is not a video game: could the nominator please fix the Delsort-notice?Newimpartial (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed that the content is kinda thin but the Ennie pushes it over the bar... bar-ely. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Polygon source clearly covers this, giving the kind of review we'd want for an appropriate game article. I believe there are enough other sources to compliment this, but if this is borderline we can revisit a few months from now. Jontesta (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per sources found and the award. Weak as I'd like to see coverage that's independent from itself, and two reviews in Polygon are not as good as one review there and one at another, independent RS would be. But with the award, I guess, it's borderline ok. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I think you might have made a mistake, it's not two reviews from Polygon (website), it's one from Tabletop Gaming and another from Polygon, by different authors. Not sure if Tabletop Gaming is RS, but it's probably decent, as some of the editors have appeared in other RS (Eurogamer, Dicebreaker...). VickKiang (talk) 21:54, 15 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hasbulla Magomedov[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

All sources are WP:DEPRECATED. The only improvement since the last deletion, the contract signing, is only from The Daily Mail which is considered unreliable. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts, Internet, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the article will not be rewritten according to Wikipedia's policies with the addition of new sources, I opt for deletion.--Tysska (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could't find any good sources. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found nothing to show he meets any WP notability criteria. Signing a non-fighter contract, even if true, doesn't make him notable nor does being on Tik Tok. There's just a lack of significant independent coverage of him in reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NASA research[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Improper WP:CFORK from NASA#Research. That section is actually better than this one which is woefully under-developed and of unclear provenance. The appropriate way to do these sorts of spinout articles is when the main article becomes too large and then material is better handled as its own separate article. This did not happen here. jps (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Keep comments and result from the December, 2020 RM, which seem applicable here. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no mention of the fact that there is a better accounting of NASA research at the page from which it is ostensibly spun out. Do you see anything in this article that is better explained here than there? jps (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Randy Kryn; nothing has changed that would suggest the previous consensus to keep needs to be revisited. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 17:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The previous argument apparently was over a different version that was even worse than this one. It seems that the people discussing the article did not look at the main NASA page to see if there might be an alternative here. It seems pretty obvious to me that this article is not as good as that section. jps (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Astronomy, Technology, and Aviation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More specific / narrow topic and more extensive. Moreover, the respective main article is already "too large" to contain all of this info there. The article does indeed seem a bit under-developed though but I haven't checked that thoroughly and it doesn't seem severe. The more extensive article should be linked with ((Main|...)) like it's been done in countless other articles. However, besides the potential issue of content missing there, it, unlike the main article, doesn't include info about active NASA research programs, maybe the info about them should be moved from the main article to this article and then get summarized or transcluded in the main article. --Prototyperspective (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior discussion. Deletion is not cleanup PianoDan (talk) 14:26, 14 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Truss[edit]

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

Is the only reason this article exists, because his daughter is set to become UK Prime Minister? I do not think his academic research output on its own meets WP:PROF. There are also many emeritus professors in the UK, so this on its own should not be used to assume notability. Also, all of the references in the article so far do not have John Truss mentioned in their headline but rather his daughter Liz. Uhooep (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Is the only reason you nominated it for deletion because his daughter is set to become UK Prime Minister? You should have given it a chance while it is under construction. See here too. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I previously considered creating the article myself, but upon researching the subject, concluded there wasn't enough to confer individual notability here. That's not to say others can't substantiate notability of course, but it's not there yet in my opinion. Uhooep (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree which was why it had an "under construction" tag. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Uhooep (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the article just need some improvement and few reliable references. I did a quick search about his publications and the subject looks notable. Thanks Fifthapril (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agree Jg10101 (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Truss does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG at this time (previous notability discussion located here: Talk:John K. Truss). This article history can be merged with John K. Truss so that it can be easily restored if notability changes in the future. TJMSmith (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:NPROF C8 based on the findings below that he was co-editor in chief of Journal of the London Mathematical Society.

Comment The journal that Truss co-edited, the Journal of the London Mathematical Society, had an impact factor of 0.88 in 2021. This would fail to put the journal in the top 71% of journals by impact factor according to this 2017 report, therefore I would argue that this is not enough by itself to pass WP:PROF C8, which requires "a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area". Uhooep (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the problems with impact factors, the operative words here are "in their subject area". Mathematics is a low citation field. While not a tippy-top journal, JLMS is highly respectable in the field, and I believe it meets the standard. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics journals score notoriously poorly on impact factors, because citations happen slowly relatively to other fields, especially lab sciences or engineering. There is also the "well-established" part of that criterion: being published since 1926 by a historically significant mathematical society (despite having "London" in its name, it's actually a national organization in the UK) suggests that there should be no argument over that. --RFBailey (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thinking I didn't know she had a notable father, I clicked on the link in the article about the newly selected Prime Minister, and then saw the obvious: she doesn't! – Athaenara ✉ 14:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only references are passing mentions in articles focused on his daughter. As an aside, the article is also inaccurate - it says she is Prime Minister which is not (yet) true; right now she is leader of the governing party and is set to become PM tomorrow. anything could happen between now and then. Waggers TALK 14:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable both under the GNG (coverage of his life will continue to grow in reliable sources over the coming days) and as a mathematician. Emeritus professor at a top university. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about this fellow. GNG not met. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NPROF #5, as he was "Professor John K. Truss (University of Leeds)" already in 2000, when he would have been 52 or 53, so the fact that he is now an emeritus professor at Leeds is based on his having been a full professor before retirement. See Professor John K. Truss (University of Leeds) UCL short course in 2000. Edwardx (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being a full professor before retirement doesn't make him meet NPROF #5. Being an emeritus professor doesn't either. EddieHugh (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPROF #5 reads "has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." Named chairs are uncommon in the UK and Leeds University is a "major institution". Edwardx (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be that an emeritus professor is equivalent to a distinguished professor appointment. That would make all emeritus professors meet this criterion, and we'd be very busy creating new articles. At Leeds, named chairs exist – [10], [11]. EddieHugh (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EddieHugh, I believe the argument that Edwardx is making is actually that all full professors at UK universities pass WP:NPROF C5, since named chairs are less common there versus in the US. I have heard this argument before, and am fairly skeptical. (But I don't think the math department at Leeds does have a named chair, and I am a keep !vote via WP:NPROF C8.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a very low bar... the definitions aren't very clear, but an official UK source states: "Among academic staff, 22,810 or 10% were employed on a contract level described as a professor in 2019/20." EddieHugh (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The citation record looks a little below what I'd look for for WP:NPROF, even in a low citation field like pure mathematics. WP:NAUTHOR looks somewhat plausible, or at least possible: a somewhat casual search yields one review [12] of an authored textbook, and another review [13] of a pair of edited volumes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Not enough evidence of notability beyond the WP:INHERITED reasons for creating an article, which are themselves also not evidence of independent notability. I tagged this for notability at a point where it was a one-line stub saying only that he is a retired mathematics professor. It has been expanded, but only with routine detail (his education, family life, academic career, and a listing of selected publications, all of which are appropriate things to include in an academic biography but do not contribute to notability) and a single review of a textbook (that does not stand out among many other textbooks for the same topic). He does have a second book, the monograph "Foundations of Analysis", but I found only the standard MathSciNet and zbMATH reviews of it; because these databases review all mathematical publications, they are generally considered not to count towards notability. The third thing listed as a book is an edited volume not an authored work. So I don't think we have enough for WP:AUTHOR, and his citation counts are too low for WP:PROF#C1 to be relevant. Re Edwardx and Philafrenzy: full professor is not enough by itself for WP:PROF#C5 notability, even in England where it might mean a little more than in the US, and neither is emeritus. C5 asks for someone who is still working at something one step beyond an ordinary full professorship (often marked as a named professorship or distinguished professorship), while emeritus is an honorary title given to retired professors. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. He's done some interesting stuff with Fraïssé limits, at least to people who are interested in Fraïssé limits...but I don't think any of it was impactful enough on the field to get a C1b pass, and none of the other NPROF criteria seem to be met either. JoelleJay (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The joint editorship is enough to meet C8, I suppose. JoelleJay (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet notability Nswix (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in reliable sources, other than passing mentions concerning his daughter. He doesn't appear to have achieved anything notable as a mathematician, and this should never have been created. — Amakuru (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't he be merged with Liz's article? Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ at this time. Citation record, while quite respectable, looks a bit short of WP:NPROF. Subject's books don't appear to have gotten enough attention for WP:NAUTHOR, or at least no one has found evidence of such. There's a moderate bit of coverage of the contrast between the subject's political views and those of his notable daughter, mostly in unreliable tabloid sources (see WP:RSP) so far. If this increases, it could change the notability situation via GNG (but WP:CRYSTAL applies). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to weak keep. The WP:NPROF C8 case outlined by RFBailey below brings me over. The Journal of the London Mathematical Society I think certainly qualifies as a major, well-established journal, and the subject appears to have been editor over a period of at least about 4 years. The significant citations help support (even if short of what I'd like to see for a standalone WP:NPROF C1 case), and the bit of attention that the books received does not hurt. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The subject of this article is a person I once knew, so I will stay neutral. (I usually also try to keep work and Wikipedia separate.) However....
- The tabloid stories about his political views are not reason themselves for this article to exist (although I wish a better news outlet would provide some coverage).
- The current article is in a poor condition, but that is grounds for improvement (for instance, it fails to mention that there are children other than Liz). The draft by TJMSmith [14] did a better job of discussing his mathematical work, such as determining the full automorphism group of the Rado graph (which is referenced on the Rado graph page). These contributions (on automorphisms of homogeneous structures) are likely of more overall significance than the textbooks.
- It's hard to rely on something like Google Scholar for assessing notability for work that predates the internet age, as the citation counts are unreliable.
- Among WP:PROF, there is also Criterion 8, "The person has been head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area." There was a period when he was joint editor-in-chief of the Journal of the London Mathematical Society (of UK-based mathematical journals, a fairly important and long-established one) with his colleague Jonathan Partington. [15] [16] (Finding better references online quickly is tricky, as the past issues of the journal don't show frontmatter, backmatter, and so on.) This criterion seems to apply here, and is probably easier to demonstrate than Criterion 1. --RFBailey (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per just above. All the cycle structures of automorphisms of R were his findings.^[1] He showed that universal edge-coloured graphs had simple automorphism groups.^[2] His classification of bounded amorphous sets significantly influenced mathematician Peter Cameron’s work.^[3]^[4]^[5] According to Cameron himself, Truss disproved some of his own "misguided" conjectures.^[6]^[7]^[8] See also amorphous set. The maths is a bit complex for me but several other math experts cite him. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Comrade-yutyo (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cameron, Peter J. (2012). "The random graph revisited". In Casacuberta, Carles; Miro-Roig, Rosa Maria; Verdera, Joan; Xambo-Descamps, Sebastia (eds.). European Congress of Mathematics: Barcelona, July 10–14, 2000, Volume I. Vol. 1. Birkhäuser. p. 271. ISBN 978-3-0348-9497-5.
^ Tarzi, Sam (1 June 2014). "Multicoloured Random Graphs: Constructions and Symmetry" (PDF). ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ Cameron, Peter J.; Tarzi, Sam. "Group Actions On Amorphous Sets". ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ Tarzi, S. (1 June 2003). "Exclusion Principles as Restricted Permutation Symmetries". Foundations of Physics. 33 (6): 955–979. doi:10.1023/A:1025669511908. ISSN 1572-9516.
^ Cameron, Peter J.; Tarzi, Sam. "The Theorem of Baer, Schreier and Ulam for Bounded Amorphous Sets". School of Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary, University of London. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ Cameron, Peter J. (1990). Oligomorphic Permutation Groups. Cambridge University Press. p. V. ISBN 0-521-38836-8.
^ Cameron, Peter J.; Tarzi, Sam (25 August 2017). "On the automorphism group of the m-coloured random graph". arXiv:1708.07831 [math].
^ Cameron, Peter J. (1990). Oligomorphic Permutation Groups. Cambridge University Press. p. 104. ISBN 0-521-38836-8.

Keep People just want this page gone because his daughter has the wrong politics. He is notable in his own right. 71.173.18.42 (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He will likely become more notable as time goes on. Faronnorth (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not established based on our predictions. See WP:CRYSTAL Bgv. (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would he become more notable? The guy is retired. As far as I can tell he had a successful but not GNG-breaking career as an academic, and now happens to be the father of the PM, and completely out of the limelight besides. Also, being a parent of a PM doesn't confer notability in itself - see Family of David Cameron where we observe that neither of his parents have WP articles. — Amakuru (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is he really retired? He has produced seven papers in the last five years, most recently as sole author. We can't refuse an article for Truss just because David Cameron's father doesn't have one. If Cameron senior had been a notable mathematician rather than a stockbroker, maybe he would have an article. The reason that he may become more notable, in addition to already qualifying as an academic, is because of the insatiable interest of the media in the relatives of prime ministers. It may be purient or unjustified but eventually there will be enough to tip over the line for the GNG. In fact, in Truss's case there are interesting things to say about the contrast between his and his daughter's politics that are not currently in the article because the sources have not yet been written. They will be. In the meantime, he remains notable as a mathematician. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that WP:PROF is the standard we have to follow for academics, which works a bit differently from WP:GNG. But in neither case can we go around forecasting future notability. --RFBailey (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems strong enough to me.—TrottieTrue (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while it would be incredibly coincidental if his noteworthiness was the reason for the creation of this page having read the details and citations I am satisfied it reaches the threshold of notability. --Mtaylor848 (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to me to just about pass WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Can't tell if he held an established chair or a personal chair, but seems to be just about eminent enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF and WP:GNG Thief-River-Faller (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per which criterion of WP:PROF, and why? Without an explanation this is just a WP:VAGUEWAVE. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is enough material about him to meet GNG (even if most of that coverage has his daughter's name in the headline - the headline is not what makes a subject meet GNG) and a plausible argument from Edwardx that he meets NPROF too. Rlendog (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2 books by reputable academic publishers (AW & OUP), not to mention the fact that WorldCat shows holdings of those books >600, is conclusive...likewise would his editorship of JLMS be conclusive. Most "delete" !votes seem to be unaware of his notable activities that are easy passes of PROF. 128.252.11.235 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep mathematician who made noteworthy contribution.--RZuo (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edwardx's interpretation of NPROF. Deryck C. 08:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Not convinced meets WP:NPROF (not quite enough cites, not a named chair prof and emeritus prof isn't sufficient, and not sure the co-edited journal is significant enough) or WP:NAUTHOR (not quite enough signifcant reviews), but isn't that far off. Some other coverage is very much focussed on his daughter rather than him. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I'd originally looked at https://exaly.com/journal/13559/journal-of-the-london-mathematical-society and saw "Journal of the London Mathematical Society is the 991st out of 2,248 Mathematics journals." and thought it wasn't significant though, but given on the same page it's in the top 19% for impact factor and top 4% for h-index I'm changing my !vote to weak keep instead. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of people think he meets WP:NPROF no support has been given for how he meets WP:NPROF. For those voting keep please clarify how you think he meets WP:NPROF.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is untrue. Several people have said specifically why above, namely point 8 "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area", viz the Journal of the London Mathematical Society which is a major and certainly well-established (since 1926) journal in its field. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Relisting. It is baldly false to claim no support has been given for how he meets WP:NPROF. There are plainly several well-articulated reasons above. I will restate mine, namely that 2 books by reputable academic publishers (AW & OUP), which WorldCat shows to be widely held, passes PROF 1 and editorship of JLMS passes PROF 8. I've been here on-and-off for many years and have observed during the last several an increasingly unfortunate trend toward agenda-based behavior and editing. I had initially disregarded the comment by one of the editors above related to politics, but relisting in light of what is clearly at least a no consensus default keep now seems not terribly inconsistent with this charge. 65.113.135.165 (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does having two books published meet "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" (PROF 1)? Editorship for PROF 8 is a reasonable case to make, but I don't understand the PROF 1 argument. EddieHugh (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the AfD record. It is an established precedent resting on 100s of cases. 128.252.172.7 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it certainly is not. JoelleJay (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DGG used it many many times. That probably makes it a precedent. 2600:1700:8650:2C60:D942:AC01:209C:7E26 (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given your first example of this alleged argument, I'm skeptical this is true. JoelleJay (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prof 8 isn't a "case". It's a matter of fact isn't it? And therefore a straight pass for notability. Why hasn't this been closed as keep on that basis? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philafrenzy, while I am a weak keep !vote myself, there are a large number of !votes that do not hew to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Having books that some libraries hold does not grant notability (although several reviews of such books would meet WP:NAUTHOR). Being a full professor generally does not meet WP:NPROF C5. (I am aware of the arguments that full professors in the British system might, but I believe this to be somewhat contentious at best.) Being cited by Peter Cameron does not meet WP:NPROF C1; the citation record in general is a little on the light side for WP:NPROF C1, even in a low-citation field like math. (Note that user RFBailey has argued that Google Scholar may be missing some citations on older work, and there may be a good faith argument to be made there.) Regarding WP:NPROF C8, user Uhooep has argued that one of the flagship journals of a major mathematical society is not sufficiently major and well-established to meet the criteria; few Keep !votes have referred to WP:NPROF C8 or addressed this point. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is, of course, a rock-solid precedent established over hundreds of AfDs that 2 books handled by notable academic publishers constitute notability. (DGG himself has probably made that argument on 100s of AfDs.) That was my main point (I'm 65.113.135.165 above) and it is enough to close this case as keep. Holdings, which are another quantitative metric (like citations) that have also established notability in 100s of AfDs, are, in this case, sufficiently high (>600) to constitute another independent indicator of notability. Editorship of JLMS is a 3rd. These points were all stated clearly above. So, the questions remains: why was this relisted? 128.252.172.7 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that having 2 books published through notable academic publisher alone is sufficient for notability? If so, can you back that up by pointing to previous concensus discussion? Because I don't see how publishing alone would satify criteria 1 of WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will admit here to my lack of search prowess, since I burned about 30 minutes just to find one reference to this precedent in an AfD from a few years back: ...we conventionally go by rules of thumb that DGG has articulated many times, roughly: at least 2 books by reputable publishers (especially including university presses like CUP or PUP, etc) and having "good" institutional holdings. It would perhaps be worth a ping to DGG for some elaboration. I don't know if his position has evolved on this matter, but I do know that this threshold was invoked successfully in many AfDs in years past. 128.252.172.7 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Would you be able to comment on this? My understanding was the requirements for notability are now stricter than they used to be. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have to point out that claiming requirements for notability are now stricter brings us inevitably back to the issue of the de facto notability standard that we have discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Thorpe-Moscon. Namely, it is hollow to claim higher standards when BLPs exist for many postdocs and asst professors that plainly violate those very stated standards. I am, in good faith, trying to create awareness that WP has get a handle for actually enforcing some level of uniformity if it ever aspires to rise above populist status. 128.252.172.7 (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was DGG's !vote in the AfD you linked: DeleteThe relevant standard here is WP:CREATIVE, not WP:PROF; she's a poet, not a scholar of poetry. The most likely criterion is awards, and I see no awards of any sort except student awards. Fellowship for bing a poet in residence are not awards in the usual sense. In terms of her single book, it hard to judge poets by the extent of copies of the book, but it is her first and only book. There seem to be no formal published reviews. The praise from Natasha Tretheway is not a published review, but a blurb quoted in a blog posting advertising a bookstore appearance. This seems a clear case of Not Yet Notable. DGG is explicitly not evaluating that case through NPROF, but rather through NAUTHOR.

What you quoted was part of a comment from Agricola44 specifically regarding norms for poets (or, at the broadest, authors in the humanities). Furthermore, what Agricola is referencing is more of a quick-fail exclusion criterion rather than a threshold for inclusion--i.e., not every author with two books with decent holdings is notable, but almost all the ones who are notable (and were evaluated strictly through this criterion) do check those boxes. JoelleJay (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I absolutely do not believe that 2 books by reputable publishers is sufficient for notability. That alone does not demonstrate impact. WP:GNG/WP:NPROF/WP:NAUTHOR are what apply. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find it remarkable that the IP editor is citing two AfD discussions that ended in delete to support a keep case based on 2 published books. FWIW, two books, each with two reviews in reliable sources, would probably be a pass of WP:NAUTHOR (and avoiding WP:BLP1E). Perhaps this is what the IP editor is thinking of? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i do not see any concensus to be deleted as it clearly passes WP:GNG guidelines. Villian Factman (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable and meets WP:NAUTHOR Point 4(d) "been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". 3,628 library holdings are enough to prove that his works are significant enough, so he is, therefore, notable. 103.21.1.242 (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong set of criteria, unless you're saying that he's a 'creative professional' (sorry, mathematicians, your creativity is undervalued by society). And (obviously) a library isn't a gallery or a museum. EddieHugh (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There actually do exist mathematicians whose work has been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Erik Demaine, with works in MoMA and the Smithsonian, comes to mind. But in general, I agree with you: this criterion is for artworks in museum, not for books in libraries. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note According to Semantic Scholar he has a h-index of 17 with 1220 citations, 90 of which are shown as "Highly Influential". Philafrenzy (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Carrie Johnson gets an article, surely John Truss gets one too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It's a solid article on a significant figure. Moondragon21 (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Whispyhistory, his mathematical endevours ensure him fame. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:30, 19 September 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 Prime Minister of Canada. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

President of Canada[edit]

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

Canada doesn't have a president 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the United States has a Prime Minister. Privybst (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly ludicrous and completely made up. Mccapra (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the page gets 30,900 pageviews (84 a day), so the redirect to Prime Minister of Canada should be restored as it has longstanding consensus having been in place since 2007. Sahaib (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also other incorrect examples include Prime Minister of the United States, King of Russia, Emperor of France, Prime Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina, etc. Sahaib (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of those are basically layman’s terms for an awkward official title. “PM of the US” is nonsense because a president and a PM are inherently different, incompatible things. Dronebogus (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't have hoax content; I'd say it has value as a disambiguation for those searching for the incorrect term when they don't know Canada's governing system. Not sure why Treasury Board President and House Speaker are there, but that's a different discussion. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a real title, and Wikipedia isn't in the business of making up titles. We report what is really used out there in the world. If we must have this article, turn it into a Redirect to Prime Minister of Canada as Privybst seems to be suggesting, above. --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don’t need endless DABs of “made up title -> implausible sources of confusion”. DABs are between similarly or identically named things, not what we assume Wp:Randy in Boise is likely to need correcting on. Dronebogus (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as a non-notable and implausible misnomer. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That it gets accessed at all shows that it is useful. I think it should have a short sentence explaining that there is NO president of Canada, and that the user might be looking for one of the below. It should be clear that it is referring to possible correct terms from one that is not correct. Lamona (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a DAB page, not an article, it is a navigational tool. The page is not an implausible target. And it does not mislead readers to help them navigate to the article they are actually looking for. It's not like this is an article on a non-existent office. --Privybst (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prime Minister of Canada People don't use "President of Canada" to refer to "Monarchy of Canada", so the DAB is unnecessary. As Dronebogus says, Wikipedia doesn't need to invent these kinds of confusions. A simple redirect will suffice. Keeping the DAB would more likely create confusion by giving the appearance that "President of Canada" is an actual thing that applies to multiple roles. Retinalsummer (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prime Minister of Canada no need for a dab but a redirect is fine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One may indeed be ignorant of Canada's political system, but they should still understand that not every country has a president. Also, WP is a source of knowledge and isn not supposed to encourage ignorance by that kind of redirecting. --Suitskvarts (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There is no president of Canada. A redirect does not help here because the role served by a president (as in the United States) overlaps with the functions of the Prime Minister and the Governor General. David Stargell (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Retinalsummer and Suitskvarts. Typo redirects have a long and noble history. De Guerre (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prime Minister of Canada. This page was originally a redirect for well over a decade. Turning it into a disambiguation page was a mistake, because disambiguation is for articles with similar titles, not for related concepts. But deletion is not needed or justified, because it was a perfectly useful redirect for a long time and should be again. --RL0919 (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RL0919 most of the time this decade it targeted Monarchy of Canada and not Prime Minister of Canada, see [17]. Privybst (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that is not correct. Since it was created it has been a redirect for over 15 years. For just under 7 of those years it redirected to Prime Minister of Canada. Monarchy of Canada was the target for about 4.5 years, Republicanism in Canada for about 3.6 years, and Governor-General of Canada for about a day. Regardless of the target for the redirect, it should not be deleted because you chose to turn it into a DAB page a couple of weeks ago. --RL0919 (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you could see above, I am also against deletion. Privybst (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this useless DAB. Canada does not have a president. Is there an article for King of the United States of America? This is excessive. It imposes one country's system on how we look at others. It is useless because nobody looking for those articles, with one possible exception, would search for President of Canada. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prime Minister of Canada.4meter4 (talk) 07:32, 20 September 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 13:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bethmanns and Rothschilds[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article, tagged since 2008 for non-encyclopedic tone, with no interwikis, seems like a strange POV fork compilation of content from the House of Bethmann and Rothschild family. No source cited seems to focus on those two families. The article also suffers from likely OR, such as unreferenced claims that "Like snapshots, two quotes from Egon Caesar Conte Corti highlight the great strides made by the Rothschilds in a very short time span", followed by two quotes referenced to Conti - it seems like regular OR by the original author of this essay. Ditto for "The quote below from Fritz Stern shows that in 1852, the House of Bethmann was still strong enough to...", again referenced only to Stern. The OR nature of this is very visible in the concluding "Summary", where the essay concludes with the authir's thoughts on the nature of the relationship between these families, where the only referenced thing is a quote to Goethe of little relevance and certainly not in the good encyclopedic style. The best I can say here is that a few tidbits might be considered for merger to one of the articles on the relevant families, and the referenced table on "Frankfurt's richest families" should be moved to History of Frankfurt am Main, but other than that, it's time to retire this early-Wikipedia style ORish essay. PS. The talk page of this consists of three headings, one of which is entitled "Peacock/essay" and the second, "Original research". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These unsourced "articles" on wiki are a black mark on our project. Delete them. I have no interest in proving why it is or isn't notable if they can't be bothered to source them in the first place. Oaktree b (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Reading the author's comments from 10 years ago (sadly they became inactive shortly afterward), they claimed they used reliable sources, but it's not very clear they even provided all details to trace them down. So it's hard to say which part of the article is ORish or not when it comes to most details, except that there is no indication any source actually covers the relation between these families. The best I can think of here would be to move it to the author's draft, maybe they'll come back one day, or maybe someone else will become interested in this and will want to reuse some tidbits after verifying them - but the odds are, nobody will do either, and people will just recreate this content using modern standards (footnotes to RSes). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if they're inactive, we likely won't get an update out of a draftify proposal. I'm still leaning delete, it doesn't seem that we can salvage it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete Wikipedia is not the place to publish your term paper, no matter how good it is. Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is too essay-like, and the notability of this topic has not been established. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --This article has a lot of sources, may be not enough, but it is about two subjects not one. We have an article on Bethmann family and another on Bethmann Bank on that family and there are others on the Rothschilds (which I have not looked at). All these are notable, but an essay on their rivalry is an essay, not encyclopaedic. We might leave a dab-page with a series of redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:20, 16 September 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 13:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Stuart (1606)[edit]

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

not exactly lack of notability, more a n almost complete lack of an real content for an article; I'm suggestting a merge to one or both of the parents. TheLongTone (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and England. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several bibliographic references Mario93 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has referenced details to the customs of royal childbirth of the day, and references to the surviving monument and its makers, with pictures.Unoquha (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any good reason to merge this with any other article. Srsval (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historically notable.--Ipigott (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable on the basis of monuments, illustrations, and references in the literature. Topshelver (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this British princess is notable. cookie monster 755 05:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated above EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:33, 17 September 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) Enos733 (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Mitton[edit]

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

Sports is not my speciality, but this is a linesman, not even a referee. The only decent source I can find is the one in the article. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several Linesmen who got Wikipedia pages. He is also included in the Hall of Fame 1 and officiating 2000+ games is not a small achievement I think. Thanks Fifthapril (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's two articles which I would say are SIGCOV: this from the Edmonton Journal and this from the LeDuc Sports Hall of Fame website. There also an offline source in the article from the LeDuc Representative which, from the title, is maybe SIGCOV. So we've got two pieces of SIGCOV (enough to meet GNG, which only requires multiple pieces of SIGCOV (two is multiple)), and considering his accomplishments (over 2,100 games officiated, a Stanley Cup officiated, inducted into a Hall of Fame), I say Weak Keep. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Mitton meets the minimum for GNG as per the articles listed above. Flibirigit (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 13:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banaut[edit]

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

There is very little substantial data available wrt it, the clan also seems to be non-notable with almost nil concrete academic references available which are not WP:RAJ, WP:RSCASTE , I am not sure if this meets WP: Notability, the article is also created by a user whose many articles got deleted in the past.Akalanka820 (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Bihar, and Jharkhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources adequately talk about the subject to establish notability. Groups of people are generally notable.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see most refs are under WP:RAJ, WP:RSCASTE, with not much adequate proper detail about it and this is being described as a clan of a community, lately such non-notable clan pages were deleted. The basic thing here is meeting the WP:N, and details. Lots of pages of the creator of this article was deleted in the past as well. I think in line with all of it, this is the best step. Akalanka820 (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We might need to un-delete some of those articles in that case. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N, then argue. A lot of those articles created by the concerned editor got deleted based on it. Akalanka820 (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If those other articles used proper source material as this article has, then they should probably not have been deleted. Wikipedia is not a place where small ethnic groups that have significant reliable coverage should me excluded. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is also significant reliable coverage, you need to understand the meaning of it and then come up with an argument. And this is not ethnic group, but non-notable clan of a community. Such pages which don't fulfill WP:N gets deleted.Akalanka820 (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article appear to be both significant and reliable. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RAJ, WP: RSCASTE, the refs are under those and anything else available is mostly not by the refs fulfilling WP:RS and also there is no WP:HISTRS ref. Please understand, it seems you are new user. Akalanka820 (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What issue do you have with Krishna Ballave Kumar Singh as a source? PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 12 September 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 13:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Kintu[edit]

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

Football coach who fails GNG. Trivial media coverage. --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Uganda. Justi yaya 10:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the recent expansion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per recent expansion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the sources meet GNG. Giant Snowman 11:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources cited in the article: 1. Kawowo: all coverage of him strictly from interview, N. 2. Citizen Digital 1: general transactional report on his hiring, no SIGCOV, N. 3. Football 256: April 2 2019 report on his firing, a few details on the club's (poor) performance under his two-month tenure but nothing significant, N. 4. Tuko Deadlink and not archived, but probably same info as #3. Goal: another April 2 2019 report on his firing, although with slightly different stats presumably achieved through an inexplicable update in 2021; anyway, N. 5. Citizen Digital 2: a fourth April 2 2019 article on his firing, this time with additional non-independent commentary from the club's chairman, N. 6. The Sports Nation: some coverage of his and another dude's hiring as Kyetume coaches in June 2021, but only has 1.5 sentences on him, N. JoelleJay (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - falls below our standards as per the thorough source analysis above Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

President of Jamaica[edit]

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

Jamaica doesn't have a president 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly ludicrous and completely made up. Mccapra (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don’t disambiguate based on a possible but unlikely mistake that has nothing to do with the suggested targets. Dronebogus (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Republicanism in Jamaica, which discusses serious proposals and attempts to create a president position. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a DAB page, not an article, it is a navigational tool. The page is not an implausible target. And it does not mislead readers to help them navigate to the article they are actually looking for. It's not like this is an article on a non-existent office. --Privybst (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I would also happy with redirect per Mellohi. De Guerre (talk) 10:43, 17 September 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 13:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chaalbaaz (2003 film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.

PROD removed with "Take it to AFD" with no improvements/reviews added. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any sources to suggest the article meets WP:NFILM. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTDATABASE. Also delete Chaalbaaz or redirect it to the 1989 film. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:02, 13 September 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 13:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhai Thakur (film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.

PROD removed with "Take it to AFD" with no improvements/reviews added. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are actually no sources in the article. I found this source, which normally lists all the songs of Hindi films but suprisingly does not list the film's songs. This source can be labeled as a database source. DareshMohan (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reviews, let alone sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourceable. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:14, 13 September 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 Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II#Timeline. The question at issue here is whether a separate article should exist; there is an overwhelming consensus that it should not, with the point of dispute being whether the title should be deleted entirely, or redirected. WP:ATD militates in favor of redirection, as does the prospect of useful information being retained in the edit history. It also seems unassailable that the title, Timeline of the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, would properly redirect to an article section specifically presenting a timeline of the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. Any editor interested in expanding the target article section can do so by visiting this edit history, without reviving the article as a whole. BD2412 T 06:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II[edit]

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

Content fork (WP:CFORK) of Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, which already has a "Timeline" section. See also WP:PROSELINE, which advises that articles in this style should be avoided. Sandstein 12:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United Kingdom. Sandstein 12:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — WP:PROSELINE is an essay, not a guideline. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't need a moment by moment account of her death, the timeline in the main article is sufficient Zerbey (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zerbey. I don't see the point of this. The main article is enough, it is not necessary to create content just because more information exists. 82.132.187.238 (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's a fork from Elizabeth II's state funeral page. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move all timeline content from Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II to this article. There are two questions that should be answered: (1) Is there reason to have a "timeline" article which is separate from the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article? (2) What should be done to avoid duplication? The answer to (1) is yes, the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, if not too long already, will be too long by the end of the month. The answer to (2) is to move all of the timeline content from the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article to this article (Timeline of the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II) to avoid duplicating the content. Chrisclear (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update At the time of writing, Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II is now 235,059 bytes long. According to the article size editing guideline, articles over 100 kB "almost certainly should be divided". To this observer, the best way to reduce the size of Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II would be to move the entire timeline section to this article (Timeline of the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II). Chrisclear (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't essentially all of Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II a timeline? In the sense that the article is about lots of things that happen in sequence. If the timeline content is taken out, what's left? Sandstein 11:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. At the time of writing, Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II has 5 main sections: (1) Background (2) Timeline (3) State Funeral (4) Succession (5) Reactions. My view is that all of section 2 ("Timeline") should be moved to this article. Chrisclear (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --DragonFederal (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as an identical section in the main article already exists. If the article becomes too big, the timeline could become a standalone article again. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Most of this is already in the main article. The necessity of this article can be revisied if Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II's timeline section/overall size grow to a point where sections need to be spun off. But as it stands now, any additional content in this article could easily be incorporated into the main article with minimal growth in its size (using WP:SIZERULE guidelines). Leventio (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Completely agree. I would say we are still a way short of needing this spin off article (and I don't think it will be needed), but we will have a better idea after the funeral. AmbroseGreypaw (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not want this page to be deleted, because I like a timeline. Thank You! 2601:40A:8480:1750:0:0:0:68F7 (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even WP:PROSELINE allows for well constructed timelines! Unlike the prose-heavy "timeline" in the main article, this timeline presents the information in a format that you expect when you see the word "timeline". Nearly 12k views since creation a few days ago suggests that people are looking for this information, in addition to what is available on the other page. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally this page was helpful as a timeline was what I wanted. Missing is the exact time of death. Hopefully that can be supplied along with the name of the certifying doctor.74.137.230.137 (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful as well. I think it's too extensive for the Simple Wiki, but I also like there is a simplified timeline for people who want a quick-and-dirty summation of proceedings in 2 minutes rather than a more robust one that would take 15 minutes to parse. Electricmaster (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all the pages content is in the main death and funeral article. It is in greater detail on that article without making the page excessively long. The timeline on the other article has been well synthesized into prose. AmbroseGreypaw (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of this information can easily be incorporated into the main article and its not like that is getting so long it needed to this information to even be split out. Yeoutie (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I think it's too extensive for the Simple Wiki, but I also like there is a simplified timeline for people who want a quick-and-dirty summation of proceedings in 2 minutes rather than a more robust one that would take 15 minutes to parse. Electricmaster (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A simple, accurate, reliably sourced timeline might be valuable to some readers, but this one is poorly written, with mistakes and much unsourced material, and largely repeats verbatim paragraphs from the main article. Textorus (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this information is included in the main article, and it's better for articles to present information in prose rather than timeline format. If something isn't suitable for the main article then it shouldn't be in a timeline like this either - articles are supposed to summarise the important content rather than trying to include as much information as possible. Hut 8.5 11:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II#Timeline. This article is basically just repeating what that particular section is saying. Vida0007 (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swap the contents of this article and the contents of the Timeline section as per KyuuA4's suggestion below. Vida0007 (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and transfer the information in Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II#Timeline to this article (if not already here), or else Delete, transfer the information in this article to that section (again, if not already there) and add a redirect from this page to that section. Mozartnut (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or redirect to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II#Timeline, because at this point it's not offering any new information. Keivan.f^Talk 04:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this article works well and has the appropriate level of details, whereas the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II#Timeline is a mess of minutiae. Keep this article and massively trim down Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II#Timeline. Bondegezou (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The details in that page are required and covered by reliable sources. What would be the point of having an article if we were only to cover everything on the surface and leave the details out? Keivan.f^Talk 16:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II#Timeline). I do not think separate timeline articles are normally useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toDeath and state funeral of Elizabeth II#Timeline PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II#Timeline, where it's covered in adequate detail. Don't need a separate article with any more in-depth coverage, as that would violate WP:NOTNEWS. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for one more week - this is an extreme situation where the article is highly trafficked due to current events. It should be kept up at least long enough so as its removal is not disruptive to people seeking abridged information about the Queen's death and funeral. schetm (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II#Timeline EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Against redirecting too. Not only do I think that documenting 1) Background, 3) State Funeral, 4) Succession, and 5) Reactions in Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II is not too dissimilar from a timeline in itself, but what I haven't seen mentioned yet is how a lot of this timeline is essentially just Operation London Bridge put into practice. The notability of a documented timeline like this is arguably because of Operation London Bridge also. A timeline is not really adding anything beyond what we already know in Operation London Bridge except any "live" practice that could be addressed in Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II anyway. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary proliferation of articles about the same thing; in the long term it hardly seems worth redirecting either. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move all timeline content from Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II to this article per User:Chrisclear. A succinct timeline is different from in-depth paragraphs and is useful in its own way: allowing future readers an easy at-a-glance look at all the week's activities. It's very much worth having, and more appropriate on its own page than adding to the length of what will certainly be a lengthy article. Doops | talk 21:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Swap. The contents of the timeline in the main timeline section should be brought here, while the timeline listing in this article should be placed there. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this suggestion, in case it would not be merged with the Timeline section of the main article. Vida0007 (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would only result in a massive headache for readers, going back and forth between the timeline and the main article. The main article currently covers the background (events preceding her death), the timeline between the day on which she died and the day preceding her funeral, then the lying-in-state, state funeral and related topics, committal service, internment, succession and reactions/commemorations. It has a good flow. Removing any section from it would disrupt its structure, and frankly there's no need to move anything out of it. Everything fits perfectly in one page. Keivan.f^Talk 03:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I prefer having an article that lists a short timeline of events alongside the main article having fuller summaries. It could be merged with the main article, but it would probably make it too big. SapphireWilliams (talk page • contributions) 01:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toDeath and state funeral of Elizabeth II#Timeline or Merge having a separate article is unnecessary and indeed pointless, so it would be better off being merged into main Queen's death article. Villian Factman (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to funeral article We don’t need a spin-off article for a timeline until the main hits 60 kB, per WP:SIZERULE.69.118.232.58 (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As noted above, Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II has a size of 244,524 bytes or 238.79 kB. According to the article size editing guideline, articles over 100 kB "almost certainly should be divided". One logical way in which the size of Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II could be reduced is to remove the entire timeline to the timeline article. Chrisclear (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the main article has a size of 67kb readable prose. While this does fall under "probably should be divided", it already is divided with a few other subarticles and there's no need to subdivide indefinitely until it's below that threshold.

Delete this compilation of excessive detail. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Timeline is perfectly adequate, and such a duplicative hourly play-by-play is unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 04:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar Medicine[edit]

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

End run around the WP:AfC for Draft:Avatar Medicine. It is not clear to me that this is even a real subject that is properly defined in the literature. jps (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lede is clearly an advertisement. The article body entirely fails to demonstrate that 'avatar medicine' is anything more than a neologism - a new phrase for existing methodology (the lede more or less asserts this anyway: "There has been a long history of using avatar medicine to help diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and cancer"). A fancy phrase or two doesn't justify another article on subjects already covered elsewhere without the puffery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~. Even assuming, generously, that this is a notable subject, the article is in no shape for mainspace. It's suffering, among other issues, from a lack of citations that actually mention the topic itself. In general, I favor a strong presumption toward deletion for articles that have been repeatedly declined at AfD and then moved to mainspace without substantively addressing the review comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm now at delete. The creator called for deletion of the draft, and I think the best path forward to an article on avatar models wouldn't take place in draft space, per my reply to Bondegezou below. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep under a new name, if that's allowed as an option! I recognise that this article is talking about a real topic, but it's not well written. Some of this relates to personalised medicine. Most of it would be better under a name like avatar models. Do a Google Scholar search on "avatar models" and you can see enough for an article, I believe. But "avatar medicine" does not appear to be a sufficiently established name. Bondegezou (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bondegezou, if we were to write an appropriate article on avatar models, would using this article as a starting point be helpful? I could see expansion in Personalised medicine leading to a split, or expansion of Avatar mice leading to a move to something like Avatar animal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some useful text here. I think some of the other comments in this AfD are overly negative and we should recall both WP:AGF and WP:BITE! Expanding avatar mice to avatar model or avatar animal could be a way to go, yes. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The phrase "avatar medicine" does not appear in PubMed. It does not appear in Google Scholar except in one instance where it coincidentally shows up as a variable name. Jaredroach (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - End runs around AFC are permitted, but are subject to AFD, and here we are. (End runs are also permitted in American football, but at risk of tackle for loss.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous editors who have found that the topic is not clearly defined. This article reads like an advertisement for something. It isn't for a company or a quack. Pseudoscience is characterized by promotional claims, so this reads like pseudoscientific medicine. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is already a draft. The draft should be allowed to remain, because drafts are not required to pass notability, but may not become an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay material, not a valid (notable) topic for the encyclopedia. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above editor--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:37, 14 September 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 even a substantial effort toward improvement wasn't able to find clear-cut evidence of notability, that strengthens the "delete" arguments substantially. Improvement in and of itself isn't a very strong argument to keep, absent direct evidence of meeting an applicable notability threshold. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia van Oosterwijck[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, i.e. no independent, reliable sources giving significant attention to her. Nothing substantial in Google News[18] (two hits from her club, so not independent, and 3 truly passing mentions (name in list). The 77 Google hits gave no better results, the only thing I could find was this local story[19], the remainder are wiki-based sites, stats, and other similar stuff which doesn't give any notability. Fram (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Australia. Fram (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep female Aussie footballer played at highest level. needs improvement, not deletion. --SuperJew (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP is irrelevant here if you can't establish notability based on sources, not based on arbitrary "played at level X" statements. Fram (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the retirement of the old WP:NAFL subject notability guideline, a single game played does not establish automatic notability anymore. All references in this page are WP:ROUTINE (one primary bio from the club, then routine coverage of the three things any player will have: drafting, debut and retirement), and having retired after one game there is no reasonable prospect of two new non-routine references ever being found. Therefore fails WP:GNG. Aspirex (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't necessarily agree with Asperix that coverage of drafting, debuts and retirement should be considered routine generally speaking, for many players the coverage is much more substantial, but there has simply been no significant coverage for van Oosterwijck. Even if NAFL were still in place it would be difficult to justify continuing its presumption of notability in this case. Best sources I could find that haven't been mentioned already: 1, 2 – Teratix ₵ 13:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbsy's sources are an improvement but still fall short of the GNG standard. EFNL's own report, website, and match results are not independent sources. The Monash Leader may be more substantial but there is still WP:YOUNGATH to consider. Even assuming the best case scenario that their coverage contributes to GNG, we would still need multiple independent sources to justify keeping the article. – Teratix ₵ 03:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree references fall within WP:ROUTINE. As with Teratix, a search was unable to find unearth significant coverage to enable WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really didn't wanna see the loss of a professional player's article just for lack of trying, so I put a couple of hours' worth of work into this today. She was clearly a decorated junior and picked up the sport quite easily, to the point where she won multiple premierships and a league best and fairest award. I sourced the Leader articles through the State Library Victoria newspaper search function, which unfortunately can't be linked directly via WP. Hopefully there's enough info there now to justify keeping the article. As an aside, it seems a real shame she left the sport – she seems too good not to be playing. Gibbsy^spin 02:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete, the new references and history extensively covers football from ages 14 to 18 via club or local news sources. Applying WP:YOUNGATH, van Oosterwijck still falls short of GNG in my view. Aspirex (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well there’s two hours I won’t get back. Gibbsy^spin 02:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources about her apart from the Monash Leader? This looks like a very small, ultra-local newspaper (Monash has some 5000 inhabitants?), not the kind that gives sufficient notability. What do you feel are the best sources in the article to establish notability? Fram (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The additional sources provided by Gibbsy move this from a delete to the side of keeping. Deus et lex (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Retired after one game, fails notability Nzs9 (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Fails WP:BLP1E. One game = one event.4meter4 (talk) 07:35, 20 September 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 11:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Blue Music[edit]

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

Unsourced product catalogue. Spam. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 10:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it has its notability, it would be better to start from scratch AND with sources. --Suitskvarts (talk) 13:38, 12 September 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 Thanasis Papazoglou. ✗plicit 11:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vasiliki Tsirogianni[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadı Message 13:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Beauty pageants, and Greece. Kadı Message 13:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her husband Thanasis Papazoglou, where mentions of her relationship may be added. I found a source on their relationship; more could be found I think. Obviously my search has not found reliable sigcov on Vasiliki herself; notability on herself is not inherited from her pageant win, pace the arguments in the last AfD on her. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per the comment right above. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 17:19, 14 September 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 12:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Together for Trees[edit]

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

Not notable initiative. Merge with Tesco. Oliver Virk (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a 2012 campaign for Tesco Clubcard points to be donated to their joint initiative with RSPB. There was some at-launch PR coverage but the Tesco subsite is no longer available, and I am not seeing sustained coverage. (There is more sustained coverage for a similarly-named but distinct later initiative by Yorkshire Dales Millennium Trust.) AllyD (talk) 09:38, 12 September 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 07:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Mashru[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG PravinGanechari (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PravinGanechari (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant coverage, only can find mentioned of him on Gnews, Fails WP:GNG. Doesn't have significant roles, fails WP:NACTOR. ZanciD (talk) 17:46, 17 September 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!} 08:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super Talent Technology[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails: NCORP. WP:BEFORE didn't help much. RS are absent. Notability extremely questionable. Oliver Virk (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, some unsourced content. --ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 17:22, 12 September 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tekla Juniewicz[edit]

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

Standard supercentenarian bio. Fails WP:BIO1E, WP:NOPAGE, WP:ANYBIO. As with many other such articles which have previously been deleted, no worthwhile encyclopedic information that is not contained in List of supercentenarians by continent or similar. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Poland. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While she is notable only for one thing (i.e. living long), during her life, she was covered by mainstream Polish media (Dziennik Zachodni, [20]) and her funeral was attended by Polish Prime Minister, a fact that was covered by more media: https://polskieradio.pl/art7789_3024535], [21], [22]. While this does seem to be WP:ONEVENTish, I think that at minimum this should be redirected to the mentioned List of supercentenarians by continent and not deleted. PS. Also, it appears she was not just a "Standard supercentenarian", but the oldest or second oldest person alive for a while or such. So I guess she was one of the "top" supercentenarian... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would be expected. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess her notability is of a bit different type from other similar "oldest people" articles existed in the past. At least she is more noteable than Maria Giuseppa Robucci, who her article is still not deleted. She is the oldest person in the history of the European country which had 40 million people, and she was visited by the country's prime minister, are a remarkable achievement. The claim that she was "being the longest-lived in the history of Poland" is backed by appropriate strong reliable and verifiable sources that are unquestionably about the subject.--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Derby's reasoning, and my own, she fails WP:BIO1E, WP:NOPAGE and WP:ANYBIO. She is in no way more notable than any of the multitude of other supercentenarian articles that have already been deleted and has achieved nothing other than having lived to an extremely old age. MattSucci (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page is very nice and I feel bad for the poor author to have his eloquently written page taken down. ❤ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.180.226 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is good, well written, concise and important. I do not see what there is to gain from deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.31.39.140 (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the Polish sources used pass WP:DEPTH. I mean... she is the oldest ever verified person in Poland which is something I guess. There are also sources that say she was visited by the Polish prime minister who later attended her funeral. Heads of government don't usually visit a person one to one unless its for a good reason. Also agreed that at the very least the page should be redirected to List of supercentenarians by continent where her name is present. I know WP:OSE, but I want to point to Elizabeth Bolden and say there might be a bit of WP:BIAS in general towards non English sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Breaking from my normal tradition of !voting delete on these kinds of articles. I believe that these good faith, non-English sources actually do bring a bit of notability and depth to this person that do not occur with other "oldest people" article attempts. Cheers. Wime Pocy 17:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Knowledgekid87 (and nothing weak about it). This person has good enough coverage to warrant an article, and the existing one looks alright. Renerpho (talk) 05:43, 18 September 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 Nammane Yuvarani. with the history under the redirect should anyone want to smerge sourced information. Star Mississippi 02:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajanandini[edit]

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

Dubbed version of another television series, not notable by WP:NTV, all I can see online about is a few press releases and paid announcements on media blogs. Can't find any mention of it on the Colors Odia site, or any independent reviews in English or Odia. It does appear to exist, since there are episode bootlegs available online. Editors searching for coverage, please note that there's an unrelated film with this name.

Moved to draft by a third editor, pasted right back by creator (and history then merged), proposal for deletion the same day by a fourth editor removed by article creator without comment. Storchy (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Odisha. Storchy (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Storchy (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dubbed version do not merit stand-alone article at all. Can be merged/redirected at best to original work if there is RS coverage. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge appropriately to Nammane Yuvarani.User4edits (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would be fine, if we could find a few reliable sources for it. It's completely unsourced at the moment. Storchy (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nammane Yuvarani, as it seems to be the exact same series just in a different language? I did PROD this not too long ago so i'd also not be against outright deletion either, but for the sake of exploring all options in an actual discussion, redirecting may be a suitable alternative. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 14 September 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 Marie Antoinette#Children. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie of France (1786–1787)[edit]

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

From what I can see, of the five sources listed two are about other people and the others are more about her mother than Sophie. She was the fourth child who died at 11 months, so pretty much any notability she could have would be based off who her parents were CiphriusKane (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and France. CiphriusKane (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Marie Antoinette#Children, where mention of Sophie's death can be placed. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 11:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Marie Antoinette or King Louis XVI of France per Mellohi! --I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 11:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for reason stated above EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:35, 17 September 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deotala[edit]

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

Not a notable villege Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 05:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 05:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though a small village but notable.--Noman☆ (Talk) 08:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MdaNoman Please ignore WP:ILIKEIT comment. Have any article or news on this villege? Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 10:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deloar Akram some evidence can be founded here --Noman☆ (Talk) 10:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MdaNoman I found a source in here. Deotola is former name of Tabrizabad villege. So Tabrizabad villege can be notable but not this article. Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 10:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a recognised settlement, so meets WP:GEOLAND. "Not a notable villege" does not apply in this case. Pure opinion and irrelevant given the guideline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources say that this is a former name of Tabrizabad, so it should be moved to that title and content added saying that it is a former name. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure. Deotala appears to still be commonly used, as a look at Google Maps will show. Various buildings still called "Deotala" this and that. I actually don't think Tabrizabad is the same place, as Banglapedia says that's in West Bengal, not Bangladesh. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 07:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-All villages are notable see WP:GEOLAND.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:17, 13 September 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 07:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urology Center of Westchester[edit]

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

Contested deprod in 2019. Does not meet WP:ORG. (And the text is quite promotional.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and New York. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a blatant promotional article. Even if it is notable, TNT would still be desired. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't the Mayo Clinic, it's a urology center associated to a larger health enterprise. Redirect to the Westchester Clinic article. Source used are not RS and mostly brief mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 12 September 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 to delete, after extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 06:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Rankin[edit]

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

No claim of notability aside from being the leader of a Canadian provincial party which receives less than a hundredth of a percent of the vote each election. The citations given are nothing more than mere mentions of the subject's participation in provincial elections. Yue🌙 23:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not even sure why it was nominated, she's got a feature in the Toronto Star and the Edmonton Journal, in the article itself. She's also featured in a French CBC article [23], GNG has been met. I can pull up many other similar sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that her being a perennial candidate and receiving coverage because of that warrants the creation and retainment of her own article per WP:POLITICIAN, but my interpretation of the guidelines surrounding political coverage is just one of many yet to be stated. If you expand the article and add to her notability by introducing sources that are superior to the existing ones (which are almost all mere mentions), then this proposed deletion can be closed quickly through my withdrawal. In its present form there is no obvious claim to notability in the article; what does this subject have that many other perennial candidates and leaders of minor parties do not, which warrants their own individual article? Why not a redirect to Communist Party – Alberta or Perennial candidate#Canada? This is just my personal opinion and interpretation of biographical guidelines though, so if the majority of those who respond disagree with me, then there is nothing else to be said from me. Yue🌙 00:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Communist Party – Alberta. Even the supposedly good sources (like the Star and the Journal) are mainly talking about the party; most of the others are primary. Article subject does not meet WP:POLITICIAN nor WP:GNG and does not warrant standalone coverage. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. The sources in the Toronto Star and Edmonton Journal exceed the routine coverage typical candidates receive, especially those on the political fringes. pburka (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yue (nomination statement and subsequent comments) and LizardJr8. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. No objection to redirecting to one of the targets (Communist Party – Alberta or Perennial candidate#Canada) suggested above. Sal2100 (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two arguments GNG met, two arguments GNG not met. Which is it? I warmly encourage everyone who has voted to reassess their submission and confirm or change their decision, particular the earlier participants, to see if later arguments are compelling.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in agreement with Oaktree b. Longest-serving political party leader in the province, and a perennial candidate in every federal and provincial candidate since 1982. Because of that, there is ~40 years' worth of WP:SUSTAINED, in-depth coverage about Naomi Rankin, in addition to the three mentioned to date within this AfD discussion, which easily satisfy WP:GNG. (In fact, so many feature articles turn up in Newspapers.com that it makes you want to throw up your hands because it will take so long to go through it all.) I also don't agree with the interpretation that the articles cited are more about the party than about the candidate. Yes, the writing in the article still needs improvement, but we've tried to fix it just enough so there is a clearer claim to notability. Personally I don't have time to properly fix this article at the moment, but in the future, if it's writing help you're after, or you genuinely want to debate policy interpretation like this, I would suggest posting to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red, where you will get a lot of feedback and assistance from people who can help. (And not every assessment there ends up with a "keep", but in this case I think you would get enough editing help that you would be happy with the outcome, as you suggest.) Cielquiparle (talk) 07:15, 12 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Garcia (chef)[edit]

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

Nothing here other than Top Chef contestant. The season article and List article should be adequate. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Got quite a bit of coverage for this one event (e.g. [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]). But it is all only due to being a Top Chef contestant. Likely WP:TOOSOON. Maybe will be notable in a few years if the coverage is WP:SUSTAINED. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (disclaimer: stub creator): Eh, I'm not going to bend over backwards to rescue this entry, but I've expanded the article to have 12 sources from various reputable publications. I'd prefer to see the article kept and expanded to provide an overview of her career and personal life. Personally, I'm satisfied with secondary coverage per GNG but I'll let others decide the article's fate. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG? possible undelcared paid article and advertisement in violation of wikipedia guidelines. 2600:6C50:7E00:400:346E:7B56:2AB8:7FB9 (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) No, I was not paid to write the entry. This comment is not an assessment of secondary coverage. Concerns about the article's content can be addressed on the talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now, agree with nominator. Not sure how this would be a paid advertisement as noted above as the article content seems encyclopedic, but I do agree that coverage for one event doesn’t seem to satisfy WP:GNG. If more sources come to light, please ping me and I would reconsider. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 20:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spf121188, an article on an encyclopedia being encyclopedic? Imagine that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That's makes that statement redundant. If you're closely associated with the subject in any manner, that's WP:COI. I've only seen it once where someone was affiliated with a company wanted edits made and did everything they were supposed as to make it known and to make edit requests. There are over 6.5 million articles on here, there millions that were created without any affiliation to the subject. Sometimes the way an article is written might give the impression an editor could be. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. C.C., while I understand your point, there’s no need for sarcasm. But thank you. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 03:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Top Chef series the subject appeared in was aired March-June 2022. Sources include not just thorough during- and post-series coverage, but some pre-series from 2019. So WP:SUSTAINED has been met to my satisfaction. Baseless aspersions towards the article creator should be ignored. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review after addition of content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as you have contestants who placed significantly lower in other seasons and they have articles. They fail GNG more so than Evelyn Garcia does. If you wade through all the post season sources, as it's been said, you can find sources prior to her being on the show. An article will never truly be complete. Wikipedia is an ongoing collaboration in which articles will always be edited and possibly updated. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't forget WP:OTHERSTUFF as part of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. What sources WP:NEXIST are indeed more important than the current state of the article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Kj cheetham, even though you want to avoid that, it does say (which you ignored) in certain instances, you can use that as part of a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting once more. I'm still not seeing consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is clearly significant coverage throughout the article. If admin requires a source assessment table to prove notability, happy to provide one. However this is absolutely a case of meeting the general notability guideline which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It does not matter that this person has not achieved anything other than being a contestant on a television program or operating a food enterprise. It does not matter that her participation on this program is the reason significant coverage exists. The point is the coverage exists. There are several lengthy pieces from the Houston Chronicle and the Chroncited within the article. There is more coverage within the Eater - and this coverage especially is not routine, but rather lengthy and principally about Evelyn Garcia. This article needs expansion. At first it does sniff as a vanity puff piece but my qualms are assuaged by the creator confirming they were not paid to write the article. Given it is not an autobiography or undisclosed paid puff, and considering the coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources, there appears no ground on which one can make a tenable argument for deletion other than WP:PAGEDECIDE - which has not been raised and if so I think would be weak. Clear case for keep, with improvements needed. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to please point out to closing admin that there has not been an additional delete vote over the last eight days, and both relists have resulted in arguments for keep on policy grounds. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as MaxnaCarta. Lameness or grand-scheme insignificance of a subject's accomplishments aren't good reasons to delete articles. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and other votes. Too soon with just for competing on the television series.User4edits (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it too soon? Media coverage has covered her for at least 8 months now. That is sustained. An essay is the viewpoint of another user, it is not a universally accepted guideline. Deletion is too harsh considering the coverage the subject has received. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:45, 12 September 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. The concerns raised about the sources provided in this AfD have remained unaddressed by the "keep" side. Sandstein 11:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shamita Naidoo[edit]

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

Former local activist, fails to meet WP:GNG or the proposed criteria under Wikipedia:Notability (politics), and part of a pattern of WP:UNDUE coverage given to this organisation. The source used to support the claim that she is "well-known" is a book written by her organisation's website manager (see Abahlali baseMjondolo#List of notable Abahlali baseMjondolo activists). Park3r (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Africa. Park3r (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article certainly needs work but there some reliable sources indicating notability such as the Pithouse journal article, the CNN piece and the Mail & Guardian 2012 women of the year page. Mujinga (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suspect that the MG was either self-nominated or heavily loaded ideologically, and it looks like the organisation included other members on the list: see Bandile Mdlalose. I wouldn't consider that Mail and Guardian website to not be a WP:RS, and I vaguely recall previous deletion discussions discounting those MG lists. The CNN article is a passing reference. The journal is also fairly obscure. Park3r (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and this from a local source [29], she's a real person, but I'm not seeing GNG. I'b be willing to !keep if we can find a few more sources, the ones we have just aren't good enough. Oaktree b (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. One last chance to weigh on whether to Keep or Delete this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject is of local interest, isn't it? --Suitskvarts (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She fails WP:GNG and doesn’t pass any more subject-specific guidelines for inclusion.Park3r (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Of the sources listed above and in the article only the Community Development Journal article provides in-depth significant coverage of the subject (however the writer of the article interviewed Naidoo directly to verify much of the content/ so the independence is not clear). The CNN article is superficial and is mainly a brief interview of Naidoo in which she discusses the situation of her community. It’s not really about her or her work as an activist. It therefore lacks independence from the subject and is not in-depth. The issues with the Mail and Gaurdian source have been articulated well by others above, but I would add that a mere inclusion of her name in a long list of women is not really all that significant no matter how you spin it. In short, we only have one quality source and we need a minimum of three quality sources to meet GNG.4meter4 (talk) 08:36, 19 September 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. Wrong forum. This is a redirect page and a discussion shoud be started at WP:RFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hardened BSD[edit]

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

Article about one OS links to another. Greatder (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:49, 12 September 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. This is coming in as a Weak Keep, bordering on No Consensus. But Keep it is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annavru (2003 film)[edit]

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

The film has two big stars but can't find any reliable sources or reviews (the ones currently on the article are not considered reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force). Usually, Deccan Herald would review this language of films, but this site is not working properly. All the sources that are reliable are passing mentions: here, here, here and here. It would be nice if someone could find the Deccan Herald review or any review if they exist.

Main problem is that due to the lack of reviews -- it is not possible to source the plot/figure out what the character names of the cast is. The film currently fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). DareshMohan (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes, there are no reviews accessible. But I believe the "Ambarish Amazing" source can qualify as RS since it is an interview. Also, Viggy must qualify as RS since it is one of the few sources covering Kannada films of the early 2000s. Editor5454, are there any Kannada-language sources for this film? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Viggy must qualify as RS according to me too. And no, I have not been able to find Kannada-language sources for this film. Editor5454 (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Viggy is reliable? @Ab207:@Kataariveera:@PravinGanechari:. Viggy is mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force one time but nobody answered the question. Maybe if someone created a Wikipedia page for Viggy, then it could be reliable. DareshMohan (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many websites were created for business, its information is in a 2009 news paper, I do not believe this website to be reliable.[30] PravinGanechari (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Viggy can be established as a notable source, I will happily withdraw my nomination. DareshMohan (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Viggy can be considered as reliable source especially for the movies from late 90s to early 2000s since it was one of the very few portal covering movie news and reviews from Kannada ( along with Chitraloka). Here is one on "Annavru":

http://www.viggy.com/english/current_annavru.asp

As far as details of cast & crew is considered, kannadamoviesinfo usually covers accurate details since it sources information directly from title card in most of the cases (though I am not sure whether it can be treated reliable as per wiki guidelines but information has high rate of accuracy). Here is one for "Annavru": https://kannadamoviesinfo.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/annavru-2003/

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:31, 12 September 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.