< April 12	April 14 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kapilakshi Malhotra[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, sourced with paid branded posts. US-Verified (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘈𝘺𝘩𝘢𝘯07 16:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. Lots of promo refs but nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 08:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nicaragua 2023[edit]

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

Another contested redirect. Wholly unsourced. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Beauty pageants, and Nicaragua. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The contest isn't for about 5 months. It will be eligible for an article once it happens, but the current article isn't real helpful.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can be recreated when the event actually occurs. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. I do concur that the article could be recreated after the event happens, though. TH1980 (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. // Timothy :: talk 06:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Horne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable political candidate for office. Kept at AfD in 2008, before we became more stringent about WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kentucky. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional tone, about a candidate who never even won a primary election. No claim of importance or significance other than as a candidate. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is inappropriate due to its promotional nature and the individual is not notable in any case. Every candidate in every race is not worthy of their own article. Go4thProsper (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yesha Camile[edit]

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

article possibly made by user affiliated with subject, no sources mention the subject and the only reference in the article links to an inappropriate site PRmaster1 (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Philippines. PRmaster1 (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR. GNews has articles which mention her as part of a cast for a television series but nothing in-depth about her. No hits on GNews archives as well. It's probably also a bad idea to have an poorly referenced article for a minor. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep She was winner of Promil Pre-School i-Shine Talent Camp and bagged only 2 leading roles on TV. Can't find anything else beyond that, but it's close to meeting WP:ENT IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG, BIO. This might be TOOSOON, but BLPs should have solid references. BEFORE showed promo and primary, nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 06:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (soft) because of the total lack of reliable sources and it being WP:TOOSOON for a child actress in reality shows. In a pinch, I could reach out to my niece in Manila for sources. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . The WP:PERX comments do not adequately address or rebut the WP:BLP1E or WP:CRIME concerns or arguments; BLP articles must be held to a high standard and none of the keep arguments appeared to address these concerns. Aoidh (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Sandesara[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet notability, all I find are PR and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is notable for four reasons:

[1] - For being the founder and chairman of a notable company

[2] - For being a Fugitive Economic Offender and a fugitive from the Indian justice system

[3] - His case has been covered by major Indian newspapers such as The Indian Express and The Telegraph (India)^[1]^[2]

[4] - A lot of new information and more incriminating statements and reports have come to light since the previous deletion discussion held in 2020.

Elkovint (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need sources that discuss these points, simply saying so isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

There is no indication their company is notable, even if it was notability is NOTINHERITED.
Being a fugitive does not make you notable.
BLP1E.
No sources provided, all that I see is routine news related to the 1E.

This is clearly a BLP1E. // Timothy :: talk 08:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]
^ [2]

Not notable , unworthy of Wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhonson1987 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elkovint - Telekvin (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elkovint - Elenfeinn (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per page being recreated after being deleted from the first nom. Also in violation of WP:NRV and WP:SPIP. ArcAngel (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: WP:BLP1E, WP:CRIME. All sources stem from this 1E, nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth outside of the 1E. WP:CRIME states, "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Since this is a BLP, I think salt is appropriate to prevent recreation again. // Timothy :: talk 06:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elkovint - Andbridge (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm all for naming, shaming, and blaming White-collar criminals, and have been on the record for that opinion since 2007. However, in all that time, that is against the overwhelming and ongoing consensus. WE have instituted strong rules protecting living persons. This badly fails WP:GNG as I think most Wikipedians would think. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elkovint - Stensrim (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . If an editor wishes to undertake a merge, the page can be restored. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great Fridays[edit]

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

None of the independent sources presented here constitute SIGCOV, and I could not find any others. Fails GNG. Creator likely had an undisclosed COI. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and United Kingdom. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the EPAM Systems article. We can incorporate some notable items into that article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I have no objection to mergers, but exactly what content from the Great Fridays article do you think is worth merging? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to EPAM Systems or weak delete if it can't be merged. Article reads a lot like an advertisement and would probably be best suited as a mention on EPAM. Dawnbails (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . When viewing the comments through the lens of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines there is consensus to delete the article; WP:GNG and the like do not say that a person's accomplishments give them notability so that argument does not carry much weight. Aoidh (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Santos Silva[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted last year through AfD, but is not eligible for G4 (see ONUnicorn's comments on article's history page). Same issues still apply, not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Portugal. AllyD (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - correct me if I'm mistaken but it looks like his sole 'claim to notability' is his failed takeover attempt at Chelsea FC, as it was last time this was up for deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, though that would concern the company rather than the individual. Aside from that, regarding the individual, there is the "Entrepreneur of the Year" award claim, though the provided reference doesn't work. AllyD (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ricardo Santos Silva's diverse accomplishments, influence across various sectors, and recognition through awards demonstrate his notability. As a Portuguese businessman and technology entrepreneur, he co-founded multiple successful companies, all of which have made significant contributions to their respective industries. This showcases his impact on the business world and further supports his notability.

I have added a new source (including his picture) for the "Entrepreneur of the Year" award, which highlights his innovation, leadership, and contributions to society. His achievements extend beyond founding companies. For instance, before establishing his own ventures, Ricardo Santos Silva served as the deputy president of Lyxor Asset Management, a role that highlights his professional expertise and industry experience. Additionally, his co-founding of Dorae, a technology firm specializing in supply chain transparency and sustainability, led to the company being recognized as a World Economic Forum 2020 Technology Pioneer, which further underscores his notability.

Moreover, Ricardo Santos Silva has received prestigious awards, such as the Entrepreneur of the Year by the Presidency of the Portuguese Republic in 2019, acknowledging his innovation, leadership, and contributions to society. His career as an entrepreneur, marked by both successes and controversies, has had a significant impact on the Portuguese economy.

He clearly meets WP:GNG, as there is substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The Entrepreneur of the Year award, his involvement in the founding and management of multiple successful businesses, and his impact on various industries all contribute to his notability and warrant the preservation of this article.ScottWillis45 (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG and BIO. BIO1E. I started a source eval, but everything is basically a mention or about 1E. :BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per V, BLP and BIO. // Timothy :: talk 13:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per ScottWillis45. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - comprehensively fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC per my below source analysis. If anything is incorrect in my analysis, please ping me. I'm also deeply concerned about the extremely promotional language used by Scott Willis above. I would also ask Das and Scott to provide significant coverage addressing Santos Silva in depth because not one example has been put forward yet and, in my view, this article does not address the reasons for deletion at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a tricky one, but my vote is keep because he has accomplishment in his field and as per ScottWillis45. SalamancaOntheBorder (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable sources led you to this conclusion? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/Gq7KzXHTygpB0lDwPcs7BKJkowk/appointments			Companies House lists every single director of a UK company so doesn't confer notability	✘ No
https://www.portugalglobal.pt/PT/PortugalNews/Paginas/NewDetail.aspx?newId=%7B586C594F-18FA-4F0B-85A3-EF63E479C2F4%7D	?	?	? Dead link	? Unknown
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/list-confirmed-bidders-buy-chelsea-2022-03-18/			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.eurosport.com/geoblocking.shtml	?	?	? Dead link	? Unknown
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60785496			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/mar/17/battle-to-buy-chelsea-bidders-so-far-roman-abramovich			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.publico.pt/2015/07/24/economia/noticia/estado-vende-efisa-a-accionistas-da-aethel-1703101			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/blog/silicon-valley-bank-uncovering-regional-bank-stress-with-equity-driven-credit-models			Not even mentioned here	✘ No
https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-a-mystery-bidder-spoil-portugals-novo-banco-sale-1489149069			Article is about a company he is associated with not about him specifically	✘ No
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/05/15/portugese-government-does-not-want-to-bear-the-political-cost-of-heavy-decisions-pro.html			Not mentioned in detail	✘ No
https://www.techuk.org/resource/from-aspiration-to-implementation-lightbulb-moments-for-trade-digitalisation.html			Not even mentioned here	✘ No
https://www.weforum.org/organizations/dorae/			Not even mentioned here	✘ No
https://widgets.weforum.org/techpioneers-2020/dorae/			Not even mentioned here	✘ No
https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/legal/materials-firm-accuses-rival-of-copyright-breach-11-12-2020/			Mentioned twice	✘ No
https://www.energy-transitions.org/publications/carbon-capture-use-storage-vital-but-limited/			Not even mentioned here	✘ No
https://www.jornaldenegocios.pt/empresas/banca---financas/detalhe/comprador_do_efisa_pede_prudencia_aos_deputados			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://eco.sapo.pt/2019/12/04/newton-vence-premio-jovem-empreendedor-2019-da-anje/			Mentioned twice	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Shankar[edit]

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV; sourced with branded posts. US-Verified (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in the article do not show notability:

Source eval:

Comments	Reference
Fails V, 404	1. "ZEE5". comingsoon.zee5.com. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-11-15.
Interview, no IS RS	2. ^ "Rohan Shankar interview". 20 July 2020.
Promo, interview	3. ^ Dubey, Rachana. "Rohan Shankar and Laxman Utekar collaboration". The Times of India.
Interview, no IS RS	4. ^ "Blame and responsibility of a flop film is always on the screenwriter, says Rohan Shankar". Hindustan Times. August 6, 2020.
Name mentioned in caption, no SIGCOV	5. ^ "Best time for writers in B'wood: 'Luka Chuppi' writer". TheQuint. August 31, 2019.
Interview, no IS RS	6. ^ "Stories are the new heroes of Hindi Cinema says Writer Rohan Shankar". Deccan Chronicle. August 6, 2020.
Interview, no IS RS	7. ^ "Rohan Shankar on writing Suraj Pe Mangal Bhari". 26 October 2020.
Failed V, 404	8. ^ "Rohan Shankar debuted as an actor". The Times of India.
Mention, "He will be rolling out the director next, to be written by Rohan Shankar, who has also penned Helmet. "	9. ^ Dubey, Rachana. "Dino Morea on Helmet". The Times of India.
Interview, no IS RS	10. ^ "Bollywood: 'Helmet' Is a Unique yet hilarious ride Says Rohan Shankar". Zoom News.
Promo	11. ^ "Helmet teaser: Dino Morea brings Aparshakti Khurana, Pranutan Bahl together in a quirky comedy. Watch". Hindustan Times. December 19, 2019.
Promo, Short quote in article about another subject	12. ^ "Helmet: Aparshakti Khurana and Pranutan Bahl play leads in Dino Morea's comedy drama". India Today. December 20, 2019.
Same as above, promo article on multiple sites.	13. ^ "Helmet: Aparshakti Khurana and Pranutan Bahl wrap Varanasi schedule of film". India Today. December 28, 2019.

BEFORE showed promo, but didn't show anything that is IS RS with SIGCOV.

WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 08:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ArcAngel (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

L. K. Samuels[edit]

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

The subject of this article -- which has clearly been written primarily by the subject and his libertarian colleagues, under a number of different accounts -- is non-notable under Wikipedia standards. The references are generally passing mentions, and not always directly to the subject, and are with frequency neither independent of him nor reliable. This is, in short, an autobiography of a non-notable person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ . I'm aware this was already closed once as such, but there is still absolutely no consensus to be found in this discussion, and it has been a month. Star Mississippi 13:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchero[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only routine reports of fundraising, partnerships and the like. Maduant (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, Websites, and United Kingdom. Maduant (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the company meets both WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Article was easily expanded, based on in-depth, independent coverage on the company in The Sunday Telegraph in 2008, 2009, and 2011; a product review by football journalist Charlie Eccleshare in 2013; and a feature article in The Gloucestershire Echo on a team using Pitchero in 2012. (For understandable reasons due to its focus on grassroots sports in the UK, the company has also received a lot of coverage in The Express (aka The Daily Express), a tabloid which is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, but we don't need it.) While the articles linked above are the strongest for establishing notability, there has also been focused coverage about Pitchero's corporate milestones (arguably including some analysis) in many other publications such as this 2008 article in The Yorkshire Post focusing on the young co-founders; the TechCrunch article on its 2017 funding round; and the 2018 Yorkshire Evening Post article on Pitchero's acquisition of Teamer. In aggregate, there is more than enough meaningful secondary coverage on the company over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time to justify keeping this article. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 08:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 11:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cielquiparle - sufficient coverage. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references (including those in The Telegraph) are simply regurgitating the company and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. Commenting on the sources mentioned above by Cielquiparle above:

This from the Telegraph "Sports website entrepreneurs aim to find the next David Beckham" is a "puff profile" relying entirely on an interview with the founders. It has no "Independent Content" whatsoever, fails ORGIND.
Next from the Telegraph "Sports community entrepreneurs convert their chance" is a "catch-up" one year later but still relies entirely on information provided directly by the company with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
Next from the Telegraph "It can be OK to ignore the rules" is based entirely on another interview with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
Next from the Telegraph "How video-sharing technology is bringing much-needed modernisation to grassroots sport" is about a feature of the topic company's offerings - recording and sharing video footage of games online. It describes the technology very well, interviews the founder and gets comments from others - but it doesn't provide any in-depth information on *the company*, fails CORPDEPTH.
Finally, this from The Gloucestershire Echo "How Old Cents are spreading their message through web" is about how a team used the company's products and describe positively how it impacts the club. It has no in-depth information about the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH.

None of the references meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could rewrite this page as an article about Pitchero the website and not the company, in which case (even by your own admission), there are two valid sources (Telegraph.co.uk product review and The Gloucestershire Echo customer use case and feedback). For this reason, I actually think this still passes! (Our perennial disagreement seems to be about whether the products and services and activities undertaken by an organization count as coverage about the organization itself; in my book it is, but in your book it is not. In this case, Pitchero is both a company and a website.) Cielquiparle (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, not quite. NCORP is a guideline for either a company *or* a product, that is true. But in my opinion, none of the sources mentioned meet the guidelines if the topic was the website (or its product) either, see WP:PRODUCTREV. Perhaps other product reviews exist but I haven't checked for that since the topic is the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the complete dismissal of Richard Tyler's three articles focusing on the company in The Sunday Telegraph (which to be fair should only count as "one" article since they are by the same person in the same publication). While it's true he does rely a lot on quotes from the founders, in each article the journalist has made some effort to try to verify their claims through third parties – e.g. verifying their claims about traffic from rugby clubs (and others) through Hitwise, naming clubs that are actually using Pitchero. In addition, Tyler himself does provide a bit his own analysis and opinion on Pitchero's prospects. While the first article in particular is light on substance (because it's still early days for the company), and it's clear that Tyler *hopes* that the company will succeed, in the second article in particular, he explains the reasons why he thinks the company is positioned to weather the economic downturn. I think that's quite different from simply regurgitating press releases, or simply taking everything a founder/entrepreneur tells you at face value. And if the company had performed badly or was poised to fail, he was ready to report that as well; that's sort of the point of the column. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you're trying to shoehorn those articles (in bulk) into our guidelines. We don't take articles in aggregate - see WP:SIRS which says that *each* source must meet *all* the requirements. None of those articles individually meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a series of articles by the same journalist in the same publication covering the same company. I think that is a fair exception, in this case. Just like we would only count it as "one" source for notability purposes. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on making an exception is not supported by any of our guidelines and goes against WP:SIRS. For good reason I believe - for example since the articles are written at different points in time and so the data points change - what might be relevant on one date may not be on the next. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, MULTSOURCES refers to the definition of "multiple sources" for the purposes of ascertaining whether multiple sources exist that discuss the topic and assist in establishing notability - it means that individual articles from the same author or publisher could as one source. But - this doesn't mean that we can aggregate the sources' content. That (incorrect) interpretation would result in a hypothetical situation where we would need to aggregate hundreds of articles over many decades from a single author for the purposes of evaluating it as a single source - that is not correct. Whereas SIRS distinctly says *individual* sources must be evaluated. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is another point in our perennial disagreement: From the standpoint of organizational history, I am very interested in how an entity evolves over time. Therefore, the point-in-time snapshots are extremely important, and help us to tell a more complete story about the entity, as long as we take care to put each claim or fact in context (e.g., citing which year, etc.); and if they are also in-depth enough and written by secondary sources, they should count toward notability. Yes, it would be "better" if the author had combined the three articles into a full-page retrospective on the company, but in traditional print newspaper reporting this is increasingly unlikely; and if you read the three articles, they do refer to the previous and the second one does ask the question of whether the initial assessment was warranted. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing analysis. Giant Snowman 19:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tend to agree with the above discussion, we don't have any independent coverage of this "thing". Outside of what's listed above, I can't find anything else. I don't thing we're at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funding announcements are all there is outside of the items discussed above, which we can't use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. HighKing's argument is concordant with the guidelines, which make it clear SIRS does not accept BASIC-like notability constructions or inheritance of coverage from product reviews etc. JoelleJay (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is not relevant. This is not a biography of a living person. Of course we should always be careful about what we say about living people regardless. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Among the sources provided by Cielquiparle (talk · contribs), whose arguments I agree with, here are two (among many) that establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria:
1. Eccleshare, Charlie (2016-12-08). "How video-sharing technology is bringing much-needed modernisation to grassroots sport". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2023-03-28. Retrieved 2023-04-10.
  The article notes: "I expect it is a situation most amateur players have dreamed about at some point, so I am excited to be trialling the Pitchero Play app, which allows teams at semi-professional and grassroots level to record their matches and broadcast clips on their club's website and social media channels. ... It is partly down to this curiosity of grassroots players to see themselves in action that Pitchero, which is a long-running club website service across various sports, has this year launched Pitchero Play where clubs can record and host videos in real time - both to supporters and the other 70,000 teams that are part of the Pitchero network. The Pitchero club websites allow teams to manage payments and memberships, and share information such as details on fixtures, player statistics and league tables."
2. Murphy, Lizzy (2008-06-19). "Graduates on the ball with sport website". The Yorkshire Post. ProQuest 335463526.
  The article notes: "Pitchero, a cross between Facebook and YouTube, was created by Yorkshire entrepreneurs Mark Fletcher, 23, and Jon Milsom, 22, during their final year at university. Since the launch of the site, eight weeks ago, hundreds of football and rugby clubs across the country have signed up to use the free website and posted their pages with match reports, videos and photographs. ... The company was started last July with funding from angel investors and runs from a corner of an office used by Fantastic Media, a marketing agency in Birstall, run by Pitchero's two investors, Andrew Hobson and Andrew McCarthy. ... Pitchero's members can create their own pages to post blogs, pictures and videos about their favourite goals, tackles and penalties. They can also track their own sporting progress. The site has grown to include sports clubs from around the country. ... Sports bodies can also use Pitchero to communicate directly with amateur coaches about new game rules and training techniques to engage the younger generation, information which they wouldn't necessarily get anywhere else."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pitchero to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provide independent analysis and reporting about Pitchero (its app and its website). Coverage about a company's app and its website is coverage about the company itself (about what services the company is offering to consumers). It would not make sense to have separate articles about "Pitchero's app" and "Pitchero's website" instead of an article just about "Pitchero".
From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services: "A product or service is appropriate for its own Wikipedia article when it has received sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources. In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. This article can be the name of the company or the name of its product, depending on which is the primary topic. Avoid splitting the company and its products into separate articles, unless both have so much coverage in reliable secondary sources as to make a single article article unwieldy."
Cunard (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response I've already commented above on the Telegraph article which was mentioned by Cielquiparle above. It has no in-depth "Independent Content" - the information about the company is generalised and not in-depth (as is required) and it also relies almost entirely on an interview with people connected with the company (including the founder). You have also misinterpreted NCORP. It covers topics about *either* companies *or* products and says that you can include info about one in the article on the other. So, in an article about a company, it is OK to have a section dealing with the product and vice versa. It doesn't mean that you can use articles about a product to establish the notability of a company - which is what you appear to be saying. Here, we're trying to establish the notability of the company. None of the (very selective) extracts you've included provide anything close to meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes I provided show that The Daily Telegraph article contains significant independent research and analysis about the company. I am saying that coverage about a company's website and app is coverage about the company, allowing it to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can reach that conclusion - the website and app are products and even a brief perusal of NCORP guidelines say the exact opposite. For example, WP:INHERITORG explains that the company cannot inherit notability and says The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. WP:ORGCRIT says that the company is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. WP:SIRS says that individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and each source must Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. if another aspect of a company is covered. WP:CORPDEPTH specifically states that Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Can you point to anywhere in our guidelines that suggests that coverage of how to explore the options on a company's website or how to use their app is meaningful in the context of establishing the notability of the company? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider coverage about a company's website to be different from coverage about the company itself. The website is the company. The company is the website. Cunard (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it's just your opinion and there's nothing in the guidelines? Fine. It would be a lot easier if you put this up-front on your !votes so we know they're not based on policy/guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of substantial coverage: "Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement" include "A documentary film exploring environmental impact of the corporation's facilities or products".
Significant coverage of a "corporation's facilities" is considered significant coverage of the corporation. Likewise, significant coverage of a "corporation's website" is considered significant coverage of the corporation. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah cmon, that's a stretch even for you. The documentary film provided as an example is very definitely *not* described as simply coverage of the corporations facilities, rather it is looking at the environmental impact of the corporation. At best, coverage of the website is more akin to a product review. Which as you know doesn't contribute to the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of the guideline is that a source looking at the "environmental impact of the corporation's facilities" is looking at the "environment impact of the corporation" so it establishes notability for the corporation. Likewise, a source looking at the "the corporation's website or app" is looking at "the corporation" (about the work a company has done to draw in customers to earn revenue) so establishes notability for the corporation. Cunard (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time per a request on my talk page following a previous close of "no consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per HighKing's assessment. // Timothy :: talk 08:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's bad form to simply remove/delete your previous !vote and comment without striking it out. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by an Admin per WP:G5. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Garang Wachbaar[edit]

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

Article about a musician that does not meet WP:NMUSICBIO or WP:SIGCOV. Repeatedly recreated, recommending WP:SALT. Jamiebuba (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Africa. Jamiebuba (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:SALT no existence of importance, using for promotional purposes, next time should be properly reviewed by WP:AFC. NP83 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (I'm updating it) Daniel Garang (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)~~ Sockpuppet; blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and SALT purely promotional and does not meet WP:NMUSICBIO or WP:GNG. None of the refs appear to be from reliable sources and many appear to be sites that publish self-submitted articles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't close deletion discussions, but the page creator has self-confirmed through an autoblock unblock request, the page was deleted via WP:G5 and salting was a logical step to take. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Sargent[edit]

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

Appears to be a vanity bio created and maintained either by the subject himself, or by people close to him (or both). A new editor stepped in last month who said they would fix shortcomings addressed in a PROD, but their added sources are mostly WP:RSSELF. One citation is from the subject's own magazine. I can find no material from reliable sources attesting to the subject's notability, aside from a review of one of their novels that was published in Boston.com. Subject does not appear to meet the threshold of either WP:NACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wordy, self-promoting vani-spam. He seems like a prolific writer, but hasn't garnered critical attention, which is required for wiki. Just another working wordsmith. I can't find any critical reviews of anything he's authored. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His novel Museum of Human Beings was reviewed in Publishers Weekly. pburka (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Maine, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is a lack of strong significant coverage from reliable, independent sources directed at the individual subject. Multi7001 (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—even if the article needs some love, being the publisher of a notable periodical and the writer of a notable book make me lean keep as people are likely to be looking for info on him. BhamBoi (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, as the aforementioned "new editor," I'm going to reserve my vote. However, I do want to address the issues of sourcing and notability. I've included citations to several reviews of his books including the Virginian Pilot, Denver Post, Boston Globe, The Morning Star, Kirkus Reviews, Foreward Reviews, and the Washington City Paper. Thank you @Pburka for the lead on Publishers Weekly, as I hadn't seen that one. As far as the sources by the subject, perhaps this is a misunderstanding on my part. I was taught that citations were meant to show evidence of the claim being stated. Therefore, if someone was recorded to be an editor of a publication, it would make sense to show a connection to the actual publication where the subject was listed as editor. Maybe it makes more sense to have them as external links. Ravenandlotus (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources can be used to verify information once the threshold of notability is demonstrated, as long as the references in the article don't rely to heavily on info from the subject. BhamBoi (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn’t seem like a notable person in the sense of meriting a Wiki article. The publication is one thing, but the person has not on his own earned verifiable notoriety. Go4thProsper (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NAUTHOR. There are not sources to support GNG. Sources in the article are primary and promo, nothing that meets IS, RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject (the author) directly and indepth. None of their works appears to have multiple reviews from IS, RS, and they look like a normal academic, nothing that would bypass GNG. BEFORE nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).

I'd love to change to Keep, so if anyone adds multiple indepehdent reliable sources about the author to the article, let me know. // Timothy :: talk 09:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TimothyBlue. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Baiat[edit]

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

Badly sourced BLP. Potentially fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC due to lack of significant coverage. Kooora, a stats site, and 2lkhbr, a trivial mention, were the best that I could find when searching in Arabic (عبد الله بيات). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG, BIO. Nothing in article or BEFORE shows any notabilty. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 08:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Not notable. Alex-h (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no notability. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 19:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R. V. Swamy[edit]

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

A longstanding article about a retired highways engineer who subsequently published some books. The article has always been laden with prose praising the subject, but with predominantly primary sources and shopping sites. English-language searches are not finding better, but it is possible that someone familiar with Tamil literature may find sources to verify the claims in the article text - in which case I will happily withdraw this nomination - but as it stands this subject appear to fail the WP:AUTHOR criteria or broader WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Tamil Nadu. AllyD (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it looks like a ludicrous hagiography to me, but I’d reconsider if there are sources in Tamil to indicate a pass of WP:AUTHOR. Mccapra (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 07:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Borderline G11. Fails BLP, GNG, BIO. // Timothy :: talk 10:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Parkruns in France[edit]

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

Appears to be a clear WP:NOTDIR case. See also List of Parkruns in Australia (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Parkruns in Australia) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 1, in the latter discussion, the NOTDIR concern was raised by several experienced editors. If anyone wants a directory of French Parkruns, they can visit parkrun.fr; there is no reason for Wikipedia to mirror this list. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Lists, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping - to users who requested this go to AfD following completion of DRV @Hobit:, @Jclemens:, @Robert McClenon:, & @Stifle: Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per list of Parkruns in Australia. Clearly WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is the sort of thing where people should be directed to the official source like https://www.parkrun.fr/events/#geo=5.19/46.582/2.859 rather than Wikipedia maintaining a copycat directory. Reywas92^Talk 18:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia is not a directory and not satisfying list notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, none of the lists pass WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On top of NOTDIR and NLIST add other WP:NOTs. Wikipedia is not a free web host for an organisations event listings. Is not a mirror of primary content. Is not a link farm. Is not a means of promotion. WP:PRIMARY, Do not base an entire article on primary sources. (see also a source used, "Parkruns in France – parkrun Car Hire Discount") duffbeerforme (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear WP:NOTDIR violation. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ . 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Trojahn[edit]

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

This article is currently resume-like, and there does not appear to be significant coverage or enough sources to meet notability guidelines. Uffda608 (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He appears to have been chief of the Danish naval staff. Clearly there are sufficient sources available to cover the head of a European country's navy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the head of the Danish navy he seems sufficiently noteworthy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd imagine there must be some coverage of him in e.g. newspapers, but I'm having a hard time finding any. Necrothesp and Hawkeye7, any luck finding RS? -Ljleppan (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To expand a bit, all I'm finding is short quotes like this, which don't really contribute to notability. And given that WP:NSOLDIER is not a thing, we really need the SIGCOV. Also noting that if SIGCOV can be identified for notability, this still looks like it's in need of a near-complete rewrite. Ljleppan (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's... not a strong showing, I have to be honest.
is a speech by him

doesn't really say anything about him

is a very passing, reducing to "so-and-so visited so-and-so"

has pretty much zero content

"Rear Adm. Frank Trojahn, an attaché from Denmark, examines the cockpit of a UH-60" is pretty far from SIGCOV

The only thing I can get to show on this page is "Fulde navn: kontreadmiral Frank Trojahn"

Just an image caption, so-and-so visited so-and-so

64 words, including the heading. It's all good info, but incredibly far from SIGCOV

"so-and-so took part in event X", by the event organizer

If this is the best there is, I'm worried we're pretty far in the WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES territory. Ljleppan (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found a biography here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can discern, HOD is, effectively, the Officers' Union of Denmark with the subject being, presumably, a member. Seems a bit borderline w/r/t independence. Ljleppan (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources provided do not amount to SIGCOV satisfying WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above, unless better sources are identified. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my logic a bit since this seems to keep going: The subject is not covered by any of the WP:NBIO's "Additional Criteria", meaning the article is governed solely by WP:NBASIC, which is equivalent to WP:GNG. There is no inherent notability for military positions (see e.g. the explicit deprecation of WP:NSOLDIER). The sources identified so-far (as analyzed above) are all minimal, and I don't see them contributing at all towards the GNG. The only potential exception is the HOD (Officers' Union of Denmark) biography, but I would not consider that independent (given that the subject is most likely a member, contrast to e.g. citing a police union biography of a chief-of-police). And even if it was independent, more than one good source is needed. Ljleppan (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don’t see any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability as specified in WP:GNG as the relevant policy. A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search. The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines. If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping. However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability. Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources. Deletion is the appropriate outcome, since the article subject fails WP:GNG notability criteria. One could entertain inclusion if there was any existing claim to WP:NOTABILITY under the appropriate guidelines, which just isn’t met here. Finally, I note that WP:GNG is not satisfied as a matter of course, which follows from a lack of reliable source SIGCOV that isn’t either WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIAL. Any claim to subject notability should be backed by a strong basis in policy, which simply isn’t the case here since the subject doesn’t meet WP:GNG criteria under WP:NOTABILITY and GNG guidelines pertaining to subjects such as these. It would be a different matter entirely if the subject met any of these conditions, however, they do not and so deletion is the appropriate policy based conclusion. The case for keeping would be stronger and more compelling if the subject has demonstrable notability via WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Overall, since none of the sources establish evidence of notability sufficient for inclusion, the article should be deleted. I would be more inclined to support keeping if any of the sources met the required criteria. Since they don’t, however, the strongest case to made here is the one for deletion. Finally, my own research into the subject doesn’t find any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability as specified in WP:GNG as the relevant policy. A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search. The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines. If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping. However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability. Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with this], which contains a full biography? Why doesn't it count as SIGCOV? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the lengthy biography uncovered by Hawkeye. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't consider the source (an officers' union) non-independent? Ljleppan (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if we can’t retain a bio of the head of Denmark’s navy we might as well pack up. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hear! Hear! The ridiculous nominations (knowing the dogma of everything and the value of nothing) keep on coming. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is a lack of reliable sources that detail the subject's background or history. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Notability is also not inherited. Any efforts to retain this article without additional reliable sources would be only a subjective choice. Multi7001 (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Parkruns in the United States of America[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be a clear WP:NOTDIR case. See also List of Parkruns in Australia (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Parkruns in Australia) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 1, in the latter discussion, the NOTDIR concern was raised by several experienced editors. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping - to users who requested this go to AfD following completion of DRV Hobit, Jclemens, Robert McClenon, & Stifle Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. While I agree that this AfD is appropriate, I choose not to provide an opinion at this time. Jclemens (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per list of Parkruns in Australia. Clearly WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the sort of thing that readers would be better directed to the official source like https://www.parkrun.us/events/#geo=3.51/38.9/-96.41 rather than Wikipedia maintaining its own duplicate directory of non-notable small, local events like this. LOL at "Thanks to Louisville Parks Dept for the use of their park!" Reywas92^Talk 18:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia is not a directory and not satisfying list notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "Thanks" mentioned by Reywas92 hit my copyvio alert and sure enough there is lots. egs [12], [13], [14]. There was a big copyvio dump here by User:The yeetgodboii. More here by User:Jinmohl. I've reverted the list itself to an older version and if this somehow survives afd content will need to be chopped from the history. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On top of NOTDIR and NLIST add other WP:NOTs. Wikipedia is not a free web host for an organisations event listings. Is not a mirror of primary content. Is not a link farm. Is not a means of promotion. WP:PRIMARY, Do not base an entire article on primary sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear WP:NOTDIR violation. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation. Can't believe this and the UK equivalent survived AFDs in 2017, since no evidence has ever been given that these lists meet WP:GNG or WP:NLIST, and they clear violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . The argument that WP:NPROF Criteria 1 is met is not without merit but undermined by the points made further into the discussion that highlight that there are several virologists with the same name, so not all of those results are for this individual. These concerns were not addressed or rebutted by those arguing to keep the article, and consensus otherwise appears to be that none of the notability guidelines are (yet) met for this article's subject. Aoidh (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jia Liu (academic)[edit]

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

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article subject's level of academic influence and awards do not match Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria either ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep looking at his GS profile it seems like he is highly active with 10k citations overall and 18 publications with 100+ citations. This is more than enough to pass WP:NPROF based on previous outcomes of deletion discussions. Also clearly his publications are in some of the highest profile journals, well cited by other academics and he has had an impact on the field. If we are following consistent criteria then this should be a keep. --hroest 15:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hannes Röst I am not doubting you, but as a non subject expert here how do I parse his influence/contribution from other authors? In natural sciences, a larger list of co-authors is common practice. Is your argument that he satisfies point #1 of WP:NPROF? I explicitly came to oppose, because I didn't see these criteria being met, but the Google Scholar should help with finding sources that indicate his influence. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah: this is mainly in line with previous discussions on WP:NPROF and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators. But yes, determining "influence" is hard and it is hard even for academics themselves. Overall the consensus is that NPROF#1 can be measured by citations in the field as a measure of how much influence a person had on the field. Co-authorship can be tricky and there are cases of people who are on tons of papers as a middle author which would probably make them ineligible for NPROF#1 but this is not the case here. See also the explanation of NPROF#1: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." which is what I have argued here. --hroest 17:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as being cofounder of business praised on Forbes, and being on an MIT list. BhamBoi (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The citation record in the Google scholar profile is persuasive in convincing PROF-C1 is met, and this is further strengthened by the MIT Review listing of him as an innovator. --Mvqr (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tricky one because he probably will become notable by N:PROF fairly soon, but my opinion is he isn't there yet. He works in a highly cited field, so his publication list, while excellent, doesn't leap out as so outrageously good as to instantly assure notability, and a lot of his publications predate his professorship, meaning that it's unclear whether they add to his notability or that of his supervisor at the time. He is currently only an assistant professor, which doesn't meet NPROF, and has no other feature that meets it. Forbes lists are pretty unhelpful for this as everyone and his dog is on a Forbes under-something up-and-coming someoneorother list. I suspect it's WP:TOOSOON but almost certain he'll arrive. It seems a bit counter-productive to delete, but by current rules he really is a delete and it's not really fair on everyone else to allow one up-and-coming academic the advertisement of a Wikipedia article just because he's at Harvard and in the in-crowd with MIT, while denying it to someone at a lesser institution with lesser academic-social contacts. If we do keep this, we set a precedent of keeping academics who seem to be on the way up, before they've actually got there. Elemimele (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule to have assistant profs being always non-notable, there is just a consensus that they often are not because of their citation record. however, this is not the case here, he likely compares favorably to other tenured profs in his field. Also @Elemimele: can you point to a bias of someone being deemed non-notable because they are at a (as you called it) "lesser" institution? I could point you to various counter-examples where the institution did not factor in at all (it mostly doesnt here in these discussions). --hroest 17:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I don't think being an assistant prof makes him non-notable; it's just that it doesn't make him notable. (2) The nub of the matter is that his only real claim to notability is highly-cited literature. My statement is that much of his highly-cited literature predates his professorship (by age, some of it stems from his undergraduate years). It is possible that a lot of this was greatly influenced by his supervisors during the time he worked under them, and reflects their influence and notability, not his. In general, C1 claims for notability should be literature that is undoubtedly the brain-child of the article's subject. (3) I believe that he is quite likely a rising star. I shouldn't have mentioned institutions; that clouded the issue. But my point was that we should be cautious of allowing a premature article about someone who in my opinion is likely to go places, my opinion being based on the fact he's landed a position at Harvard and attracted attention from MIT. In effect, I was commenting on my own systematic bias towards respectable Western academia. But ultimately, this is an encyclopaedia, not LinkedIn. It does no harm if we wait a year or two. I think currently he's strictly speaking a delete by the rules, but I won't lose any sleep over the article being kept, because in a year of two, he'll probably pass. Elemimele (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtful points, I mostly agree with you on the subject matter and all your points but I come to a slightly different (subjective) conclusion as I tend to generally lean against deletion. --hroest 01:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for aformentioned reasons and because it doesn't seem like the deletion request was made in good faith. Thornfield Hall (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Thornfield Hall[reply]
Comment. This guy's Scopus profile seems very impressive, but it also contains a ton of covid papers that don't appear in his Harvard publication list as well as papers published with numerous affiliations that are not listed here or on his linkedin (like, 28 anomalous affiliations, going back to 2008). Is there a virologist of the same name? JoelleJay (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think maybe there are three Jia Liu virologists? [15] is affiliated with the University of Arkansas, [16] is affiliated with Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and [17] is affiliated with the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. They all appear unrelated to the subject here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sandstein, is there a reason for this re-re-listing, rather than just closure of the discussion? Silver seren^C 23:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that there is not yet clear consensus. Sandstein 08:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Forbes article only has a passing mention of the subject. It has no significant coverage of the subject itself. Furthermore, the Harvard sources are not independent of the subject. There are no useful sources listed except for the MIT Under 30 article. Multi7001 (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF, and WP:TOOSOON (soft delete). We have almost never kept an article for an assistant professor. Get back to me when he earns tenure. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CU Note This article was created by a sock from a large UPE spam ring. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Midnight In Zoho for details. I was about to delete it per WP:G5, but will leave it since this discussion is already underway. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UPE rings deserve no quarter. Academic notability standards are not yet met, and the available sources fail to be sufficiently independent and detailed to argue for notability by any other means. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ . There doesn't seem to be consensus on whether to keep or redirect, but there is a general agreement that the content needs to be rewritten. Aoidh (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Czech films considered the best[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage, no secondary sources for almost all the individual lists. Editors are also advised to see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 73#Potential violation of TOP100 and CLIST. _Jovian ^Eclipse 19:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 19:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, but completely rewrite. I would say get rid of the "Genre" section and rather than copying all of the individual lists, pare it down to perhaps the ten or twelve films that have shown up most regularly on the collective lists, as with List of films considered the best. Alternately, redirect to List of films considered the best#Czech Republic and add the refs in this article as needed. BD2412 T 21:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should, at minimum, redirect to List of films considered the best#Czech Republic. TompaDompa (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs cleanup, but passes CLN/AOAL // Timothy :: talk 00:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak-merge salvageable content to List of films considered the best#Czech Republic, or keep once cleaned up at original page. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Parkruns in the United Kingdom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A spinout of the Parkrun page, this list doesn't meet any part of WP:NLIST or WP:N. Seems like a fairly clear violation of WP:NOTDIR. Hobit (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United Kingdom. Hobit (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDIR is a Wikipedia policy. Parkrun itself is notable but there is simply no need for an exhaustive list of every single event. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per list of Parkruns in Australia. Clearly WP:NOTDIR. The very exceptional few notable ones can probably be mentioned on the parent article. Ajf773 (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the sort of thing that readers would be better directed to the official source like https://www.parkrun.org.uk/events/events/#geo=4.03/55.05/-2.95 rather than Wikipedia attempting to maintain its own duplicate directory of non-notable small, local events like this. Reywas92^Talk 18:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every link to a "parkrun" is actually just a link to a park or other location. Dream Focus 21:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On top of NOTDIR and NLIST add other WP:NOTs. Wikipedia is not a free web host for an organisations event listings. Is not a mirror of primary content. Is not a link farm. Is not a means of promotion. WP:PRIMARY, Do not base an entire article on primary sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reywas92. Clear NOTDIR violation, and advertising concerns also. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation. Can't believe this and the US equivalent survived AFDs in 2017, since no evidence has ever been given that these lists meet WP:GNG or WP:NLIST, and they clear violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ . North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Christian Music Festival[edit]

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

This reads like a bad ad for a "group of local Christians who want to present wholesome, Christ centered, family valued entertainment options". Can't find any reliable sources that even mention it. PopoDameron ⁠talk 00:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Religion. PopoDameron ⁠talk 00:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's several more mlive links and at least two more presumably RS listed in the 'news' tab of find sources, above. Not what I expected to find, but it appears to be an ongoing thing with regional coverage. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other sources under news don't really seem fully reliable to me. If MLive is the only RS (which it might not be), I would argue an issue of WP:GEOSCOPE. According to Google Trends, the only people who look it up are from Michigan, and specifically Muskegon and Norton Shores. It doesn't seem notable at all outside of these two small cities. PopoDameron ⁠talk 02:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain the disconnect between this and your nomination statement, Can't find any reliable sources that even mention it. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "other sources," obviously excluding anything already in the article. PopoDameron ⁠talk 06:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Christianity, and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as MLive Media Group seems to be a reliable source as they publish articles from their physical newspapers and Grand Rapids Magazine is also most likely a reliable source, passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Broad Eye Windmill#Windmill Broadcasting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Windmill Broadcasting[edit]

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

Online radio station, fails WP:GNG. I am not finding any independent coverage of this radio station during WP:BEFORE. Article cites no external sources and is written in a promotional tone. Suggest a redirect to Broad Eye Windmill. Flip Format (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Broad Eye Windmill#Windmill Broadcasting. Fails WP:WEB per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator, with no delete !votes.‎ . (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chaine FM[edit]

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

Non-notable temporary radio station. Entire article is WP:OR and cites no sources. WP:BEFORE reveals no significant coverage. Flip Format (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Ireland, United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland. Flip Format (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my !vote to keep per WP:HEY due to the work done by User:Guliolopez. I'm not sure why these sources didn't appear in my WP:BEFORE research. Flip Format (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . Aoidh (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TBS Broadcasting Center[edit]

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

Contested redirect - no improvement since redirected, zero in-depth coverage currently in article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Current sources are enough to support the article. More than 3 independent sources (Bloomberg, Obayashi Corporation, 三井広報委員会, SONY, Ikegami Tsushinki), and covered the contents mentioned in the article, meet the Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Buildings_and_objects. Similar theme articles (e.g.The London Studios, NHK Broadcasting Center) also exist as independent articles. Onel5969 merged this article without any discussion. I think Onel5969 needs to provide evidence to support that current sources are not in-depth coverage. --Suicasmo (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and Japan. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NGEO: source eval:

Primary, not about subject :: 1. TBS50年史 [50 Years of TBS] (in Japanese). Tokyo Broadcasting. 2002. OCLC 704226898.
Article about An urban outdoor sauna festival "Akasaka Sauna Festival" will be held in Akasaka!, promo, not about subject :: 2. ^ "akasaca Sakas". TBS. Retrieved 2023-03-01.
Failed V: about a business partnership, not the building :: 3. ^ "CBS NEWS AND TOKYO BROADCASTING SYSTEM SIGN MULTI-YEAR RENEWAL". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2023-03-09.
Database record from builder :: 4. ^ "Tokyo Broadcasting System(TBS) Center". Obayashi Corporation. Retrieved 2023-03-01.
Photo album :: 5. ^ "TBS Broadcasting Center" . t-glover . Retrieved 2023-03-01 .
Failed V: about upcoming events, not the building :: 6. ^ "Akasaka Sacas" . Mitsui Public Relations Committee . Retrieved 2023-03-09 .
A PDF about lighting equipment. :: 7. ^ "TVスタジオ Lighting Equipment" (PDF) . MARUMO - Marumo Electric . Retrieved 2023-03-09 .
Promo primary piece about the company cafeteria "Diary of a visit to the company cafeteria" :: 8. ^ "[Business cafeteria visit] Tokyo Broadcasting System Holdings Co., Ltd. (TBS HD)" . Shashoku dot com.Retrieved 2023-03-29 .
Sony sold equip to subject, article about the equip, Not IS RS. :: 9. ^ "TBS TV Co., Ltd." . SONY . Retrieved 2023-03-29 .
Lighting data sheet, Fails V, not about the subject :: 10. ^ "TBS Broadcasting Center C/D Studio" ( PDF) .Marumo Denki.Retrieved 2023-03-29 .
Interview, about studio equipment not the building :: 11. ^ "TBS Television Co., Ltd. Delivered 4K system camera UHK-430 to newly established "G Studio"" . Ikegami Tsushinki . Retrieved 2023-03-29 .
Photos, not SIGCOV :: 12. ^ "TBS Broadcasting Center N Studio" (PDF) . Morihei . Retrieved 2023-03-29 .

Sources in the article do not show N. BEFORE didn't show anything that is IS RS with SIGCOV showing N. // Timothy :: talk 04:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 6 was for support "The nickname of TBS Broadcasting Center is “big hat”, was named after the circle heliport which on the top of building.", and it was mentioned in reference link "その左方向にあるのが、ビッグハットの愛称で知られるTBS放送センターだ。"
Reference 8 was for support "Television studios are located on the 2nd to 8th floor of the broadcasting center, and radio studios are located on the 8th to 9th floor.", and it was mentioned in reference link "建物の2階から8階まではTBSテレビのスタジオが、そして8階と9階にはTBSラジオのスタジオがあり、社員食堂は11階にひとつ、そして 12階に２つあります。"
Reference 9 was for support "Available for 4K resolution", and it was mentioned in reference link "看板番組の制作を担うAスタジオを4K対応に更新。"
Reference 11 was for support "It was a studio used for TBS radio, but now using as a multi-using studio", and it was mentioned in reference link "TBS様局内で増加しているスタジオ需要に対応するために新設されたマルチユーススタジオです。"

Suicasmo (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the analysis performed by TimothyBlue above, there does not appear to be sufficient sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . Also moving Helon (disambiguation) to Helon per the discussion. Aoidh (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helon[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The reasoning given was: A collection of spurious connections. A complete mess that nobody is ever going to—nor should attempt to—clean up. Family DNA, the Bible, a fictious travelogue, botany, Scythians... We have a dab page that can be moved to its place. Srnec (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page Helon has existed for a number of years and has had a number of edits (including revisions and editions) by independed Wiki Editors.

The content of the page is used by quite a few users around-the-world to gain a grounding on the subject(s).

YES - the page could do with a tidy-up as previously suggested.

I don't see any mention of "Family DNA, or a fictious travelogue" and I don't see any justification for deletion.

I question your motives Srnec, and given comments by others on other pages it seems you are just up to mischief because you either don't like someone, something, or have a personal interest in seeing the page Helon deleted?

PLEASE EXPLAIN your expertise? Pegasus1965 (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the DNA—not because you didn't add it, but because I must have been looking at an older version of the article. That material was removed by Doug Weller on 2 December 2013. The fictitious travelogue is Helon's Pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Srnec (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So then as far I can see, there's no reason to delete this article. @Srnec:, would you like to withdraw your AfD (I had to withdraw one a few days ago!)? Doug Weller talk 07:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the people and language are already listed in Helon (disambiguation), which should be moved here afterward. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is unclear what the proposed course of action is here. Move a DAB, delete or otherwise. As the deletion might be needed for the move, relisting for more input rather than a no consensus/handle editorially.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, Religion, and Geography. Skynxnex (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and move Helon (disambiguation) to the title. The excessive detail and attempts to tie everything together amount to WP:SYNTH. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This article brings together in one article a number of disparate subjects which ought to be in separate articles, united by a disambiguation page. For the same reason we do not allow SHAREDNAME categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ . Aoidh (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Centre d'Etudes Diplomatiques et Stratégiques[edit]

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

Non secondary sources Durifon (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Education, Schools, and France. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Clearly passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an accredited postgraduate school of national importance. Mccapra (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ . Aoidh (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of restaurants in Rotterdam[edit]

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

Doesn’t follow WP:NOTGUIDE and acts like a travel guide. Also doesn’t follow GNG. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Netherlands. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could this content be something that could be transwikified to the Wikivoyage sister project? It's also important to state that the list doesn't satisfy WP:LISTN. – The Grid (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but one with articles were from the same user and are also at List of Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands. Reywas92^Talk 19:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 8 valid links to other articles, making this a valid link, just like all the others at Category:Lists of restaurants by city and many other Category:Lists of restaurants. I removed all red links and the lists of chains. This is a perfectly valid information and navigational list. This same debate has happened multiple times before. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in Wales, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in New Jersey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in Cincinnati, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in Baltimore, always ending in keep. Dream Focus 11:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Dream Focus summed it up very well. Rotterdam is the second largest city in the Netherlands and has a lot of notable restaurants, so this article can even be expanded including different qualitative sources. Coldbolt (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. NOTGUIDE is more on excessive details or subjective listing regardless of notability (i.e. listing every restaurant). This is merely a list of restaurants deemed notable by their existing articles and that are in Rotterdam. It is not an indicator of guidance suggesting the best restaurants nor an elongated list of every single restaurant in Rotterdam, including non-notable ones, it is limited to deemed notable restaurants. All other similar list articles should ideally be considered together if using this reasoning, in light of similar past AfDs. Dank Jae 00:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 14:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Ziade[edit]

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

Fails to WP:GNG and WP:BIO clearly. Source #1 and #3 not working. Source #2 his website conflict of interests. Sources from #4 to #12 are unreliable and looks like paid sources. Page creator appears to have a conflict of interest with the article. فيصل (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Lebanon. فيصل (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Source #1 and #3 not working, but have archive links in the citations so we can still check them. I found an English-language source by clicking on the Google News link above: an American magazine called Nevada Business published an article called Family Owned Businesses 2018 on 1 March 2018. It has a paragraph on Growth Holdings (along with paragraphs on other similar size businesses such as a piercing salon, and a restaurant and bar). The magazine article seems to suggest that his brother Philippe is more likely to be notable than Khalil.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 08:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and I could not find any notable sources. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Wine Circle[edit]

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

It's a student wine club at a university. There are passing mentions on the page and some primary sources. Other sources exist but I don't see much that could be considered more than a passing mention of the subject. JMWt (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England. JMWt (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources already in the article are either passing mentions or primary sources; I cannot find anything further myself which would meet the requirements of WP:GNG. WJ94 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Decanter article is a short promotional post. The Daily Telegraph story pertains to another subject and does not provide any significant coverage. All other references cited are not reliable. Multi7001 (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dalamarmarangal[edit]

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

Does not cite any reliable sources. A search for reliable sources did not reveal any that were anything more than just a placeholder page with minimal details, at least among the mostly English ones I could find. Perhaps there are some in Malayalam that I did not uncover. No apparent significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject as required by WP:GNG. Also does not appear to satisfy even one of the notability criteria for films (see WP:NFO). — Archer1234 (t·c) 10:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. — Archer1234 (t·c) 10:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 12:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwan Ahir[edit]

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

This is a case of WP:BIO1E and WP:PERP. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Uttar Pradesh. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Latin music in Canada. Viable AtD. No indication further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 14:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Awards Canada[edit]

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

Dubious notability of awards ceremony. All I found were PR articles, and some other sources very closely related to the actual event. In my opinion does not pass GNG. Bedivere (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Dance, Music, Radio, Awards, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin Awards of Canada, or Latin Awards Canada, is an event organized by the Fondation Cruz-A, which is an entity that works non-profit and made up of an administrative body and a large group of collaborators who are experts in the different environments analyzed. It was founded in 2015, and has been held uninterruptedly since its founding (8 years of continuous events).

The purpose of the ceremony is to reward, highlight, and recognize the values and effort of local artists, youth, and talents residing in Canada, as well as businessmen, athletes, journalists, broadcasters, promoters, Latino media, and Canadian personalities, with the intention of encouraging them to be better every day and recognize the good work of experts in different areas (diversity of recognitions).

The choice of the nominees will be through surveys of the most outstanding in different areas and the winners will be chosen during the qualifications determined by the general public through a website and social networks (voting open to the public and through experts ).

Personalities such as Miguel Barnet, Eliades Ochoa, Andy Baquero, Ken-Y, Héctor Acosta, among others, have been recognized for their professional development within Canada. (https://azizeinforma.com/ganadores-del-latin-awards-canada-2023/)

Press releases in independent and important media that will have a page in Spanish Wikipedia

ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If nothing else, this article could be redirected to Latin music in Canada. That's assuming the article cannot be kept. Erick (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Walker Baylor[edit]

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

Simply not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Interesting footnote in Alamo history, perhaps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Handbook of Texas, which according to its Wikipedia article is a comprehensive biographical dictionary of Texas, has a 594-word biography of the subject, here. If we're not basing our standards of notability on one of the best biographical dictionaries in the area, what are we doing?. Also, Alamo Defenders has a 2-page biography of the subject, here (the source is in the bibliography of the Handbook of Texas article). There is a biographical sketch in this history (also cited in the Handbook of Texas, although I can't read all of it on Google Books). The website of the San Jacinto Museum of History has a 1,719-word biography by Louise W. Kemp, here, which is the first hit on Google. And there's this piece from a mid-20th-century Texas newspaper. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find many notable sources in a simple gsearch. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A search finds multiple sources with WP:SIGCOV that can establish notability. The subject passes WP:BIO. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources posited by Ficaia more than meet our general notability guidelines. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to pass GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ficaia. Mccapra (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 12:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Stringini[edit]

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

Another contested redirect without a single in-depth source from a reliable, secondary, independent source. No notability outside band. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; all sources currently in use are unreliable for various reasons. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a consensus for delete/redirect, this article and related titles Christopher Richard Stringini, Christopher Richard "Richie" Stringini and predictably Christopher Richie Stringini should be salted due to persistent disruptive editing by Cambridge Guys socks. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’d like to point out that I too “had a Justin Bieber look-alike hairstyle although Bieber wasn't out at that time.” Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreliable sources and no other significant sources can be found.Pershkoviski (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been established and there is no evidence of news coverage worthy of establishing the individual as having achieved notoriety or extensive coverage in WP:RS publications. Go4thProsper (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in Wikipedia's meaning of the word - as per the last AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Richard Stringini (why are we having another one in the same month?) and repeated refusals of Draft:Christopher Richard Stringini. Fans have also tried adding the same page under several different titles - Christopher Richard "Richie" Stringini, Christopher Richard Stringini and Richie Stringini - suspect all versions will need salting - as per User:Rosguill above - Arjayay (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎ . Star Mississippi 14:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel (2022 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF. Not yet released, no indication that production was notable. DRAFT or delete until release. Monhiroe (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Monhiroe (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until release, fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 10:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus here is to Keep this article but that it needs some serious improvement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gayle Anderson[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. One of the two references is connected to the subject, another is a trivia source. Career section is also under-referenced and thus does not comply with WP:BLP. A09 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. A09 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole article is supported with two sources only which, I agree, would be scarce even for a general article but the requirements for WP:BLP are even stricter and prescribe sufficient media coverage and secondary sources to prove their notability.--Rodgers V (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Rodgers V: What do you think about #1 of WP:ANYBIO as subject got 3 Emmys. A09 (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note for researchers, especially on the Miami side: she was known as Gail, not Gayle, in Miami. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, barely, but the unsourced material needs to be removed. I think the content here Gayle Anderson#Awards and recognition passes the line. // Timothy :: talk 03:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but recommending that editors consider a WP:TNT. I personally think the article has potential given the awards nomination. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only because she has won Emmys, but the article is in dire need of work. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per editors above and per WP:ANYBIO with her Emmy awards. Shout out to Timothy for TNTing the unreferenced material here. Nomader (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above comments; a simple search on the Emmys website confirms her award (e.g. here).
Straughn (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ . I doubt very much that further discussion will result in consensus. While there is little disagreement about which sources are available, there is wide disagreement about the quality and depth of the available sources, and whether we should be more concerned about the availability of multiple, less-than-in-depth sources vs. that a BLP requires strong sources. Policy would certainly lean heavily to the latter for controversial information, but that does not appear to be the case here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Zebelyan[edit]

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

Fails GNG and BIO. Unsourced except for promo stats links in EL. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 13:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, Football, and Armenia. 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘈𝘺𝘩𝘢𝘯07 16:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Sourcing likely out there given his career in Russian top flight and for Armenian national team, but cannot find it. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 15:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] and [36], among many many more Russian and Armenian sources. Defiently has offline sources as well, having been clearly significant figure in football in former Soviet states with over 200+ appearances isn fully top flights and second tiers of Soviet states and 7+ appearances for Armenia in extensive career spanning 10+ years. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Source #1 is a first-person account by Zebelyan and Kakosyan N. #2 is an interview that contains some introductory sentences on him, but there's a lot of speculative rather than biographical material there N. #3 literally says Filling in the information gap related to the matches of the national team, we bring to your attention a series of archival interviews prepared by the club's press service for official programs N. #4 is pure Q&A interview N. #5 is pure Q&A interview N. If your first five sources are that poor I don't expect the other 14 to be any better. JoelleJay (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Zebelyan appears to have had two meaningful seasons of football; 2006 - when he was joint-second leading scorer (23 goals) in the Russian second tier with Kuban, and 2010 - when he was joint-top scorer (6 goals) for his club Zhemchuzhina Sochi in the Russian second tier. Aside from those seasons, he made 12 Russian top tier appearances in 2007 (leaving Kuban mid-season for Khimki because he wasn't playing regularly), and notched a lot of goals in the semi-pro Russian third tier (as well as in Belarus and Kazakhstan). I checked gazeta.ru, and their coverage is all routine (list); transfer announcements, national team call up announcements, match reports, injury reports. Sport-express.ru has some of the same articles (probably club press releases) and further routine coverage. I haven't had the time to check Armenian-language coverage, but I'm not seeing anything in-depth yet; which seems reasonable given that he hardly ever played at a level that would garner Russian-language media attention. Jogurney (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Armenian-language coverage is no better. The tert.am Q&A interview posted above is potentially useful, but contains so little independent reporting, it cannot count towards WP:SIGCOV. This blogpost actually sums up Zebelyan's career (he is one of 20 Armenian footballers who "didn't live up to expectations") in a way that helps me understand why I can't find any SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG, per my WP:BEFORE above. Unfortunately, any of Das osmnezz's sources that I didn't discuss are also not independent or routine/trivial as well. Jogurney (talk)
Comment - I have just spent an hour and a half doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". On top of that, one of the sources (sports.kz) states, "the forward Robert Zebelyan, quite well-known in the post-Soviet space" (he has a wikipedia page in 9 languages). Defiently has offline sources as well, having been clearly significant figure in football in former Soviet states with over 200+ appearances isn fully top flights and second tiers of Soviet states and 7+ appearances for Armenia in extensive career spanning 10+ years. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What new sources have you introduced beyond those listed above? I went back through the ones posted above (now added to the article), and the sportfiction.ru hosting of a Nezavisimaya Gazeta Q&A interview is the only one with independent reportage (2 paragraphs) of any significance. That said, I would need to see something else to believe the GNG could be met. Care to share what you think gets us there? Jogurney (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to clarify that Zebelyan has not made 200+ appearances isn fully top flights and second tiers of Soviet states; he played 12 matches in the Russian top division, 101 matches in the Russian second division, 9 matches in the Belarussian top division, and 11 matches in the Kazakh top division (really only 12 of these at an elite level). Jogurney (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG after going through the sources. Dougal18 (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Responding to Jogurney, other editors and I disagree with your opinion that the 19+ sources do not provide IRS SIGCOV, as shown in the keep votes above. It's fine, we can agree to disagree. Also, based on my experience, former Soviet states tend to have interviews as one of the highest forms of sports coverage compared to other countries. As stated above, one of the sources (sports.kz) states, "the forward Robert Zebelyan, quite well-known in the post-Soviet space" (this is coming from a Kazakhstani website, which shows how notable he is in post Soviet football. He also has a wikipedia page in 9 languages). This is shown by the fact that there are many many sources about him from a large variety of websites/newspapers from many different countries over the years. On top of that, there are definitely also offline sources about him in Armenian and Russian. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the number of sources is irrelevant. If you read the sports.kz source, it is simply a press release from FC Tobol (Zebelyan's employer). Per discussions at WT:NSPORTS, a press release from a sportsperson's club (or the league that organizes the competitions their club participates in) is NOT independent and cannot contribute towards notability. We need to see in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources; and you've not provided that. Jogurney (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the sources are not club press releases and are by the news portals themselves. On top of the many many sources about him during his playing career, the fact that there are sources about him years after his retirement ([37], [38], [39] among others) show how notable he is in post Soviet football. The information on all the sources is enough for a relatively comprehensive footballer Wikipedia page, especially an Armenian player. On top of that, there are definitely also offline sources about him in Armenian and Russian. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've already been over the first two, which are primary and non-independent interviews (the second better than the first). The third source is a wordpress blog, why would you link that? JoelleJay (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Responding to JoelleJay, the fact that there are sources about him years after his retirement show how notable he is in post Soviet football. The information on all the sources is enough for a relatively comprehensive footballer Wikipedia page, especially an Armenian player. The focus is always on deletion rather than improvement, but I spent hours doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". As one user stated in another deletion discussion, "expansion... renders the above WP:WIKILAWYERING a moot point". On top of that, there are definitely also offline sources about him in Armenian and Russian. Responding to Jogurney, the majority of the sources are not club press releases and are by the news portals themselves. Finally, Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge, and this article is a "yes" to Wikipedia:The one question. Zebelyan is clearly a topic of interest, especially with Wikipedia pages in around 9 languages, and no, I'm not saying everybody should have a Wikipedia page, but Zebelyan is "quite well-known in the post-Soviet space" (which means he has been a significant figure in the football of at least a few nations), as the many sources, primary or not (and some aren't), from many countries and years show, as well as his extensive professional career, which included playing in the "elite level" Russian Premier League. On a side note, I find the double standard of the most consistent pro-deletion users very frustrating since most of them either support Wikipedia:SNG for another topic where the article doesn't need to meet WP:GNG or have sometimes created articles with less coverage than this one... (I support article creation, but their double standard is very frustrating). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prosifying his infobox and supplementing it with trivia from routine transactional reports is not "improvement". JoelleJay (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If writing a comprehensive summary of pretty much his entire career (early life, youth club career, senior club career, youth international career, senior international career, post-playing career, style of play, and personal life) is "trivia", I don't know what isn't "trivia" in a Wikipedia biography. Also, most of the sources are clearly not routine - WP:ROUTINE states that routine coverage is things like "wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs" etc. My other points in the previous statement above still stand, but at this point, let's agree to disagree. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS states routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. This is also reflected in PRIMARYNEWS and in the sources used at PRIMARY. JoelleJay (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, its not like the sources don't have any secondary coverage (e.g. "the 22-year-old boy was noticed in Kuban, where he became the team's top scorer in the 2006 season and from where he was regularly called up to the Armenian national team. Moving next season to Khimki... seemed like a step forward, but at the peak of his abilities, Zebelyan decided on a desperate step, once again plunging into the abyss of the PFL in the hope of reviving the Sochi Zhemchuzhina. Alas, the new project, despite a promising start, soon sank into oblivion", "the forward Robert Zebelyan, quite well-known in the post-Soviet space" etc). Secondly, every deletion editor's entire arguments is basically repeating "everything is routine" (clearly not true) or "deletion because the "law" said so" (Wikipedia:Wikilawyering) without thinking about why the "law" exists in the first place... the reason the secondary source "law" exists is objectivity, which this article does anyways... if a fair amount of independent, reliable sources, primary or secondary, can produce an objective factual decent sized article about a clear topic of interest, there's no logical reason it should be deleted at all (Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge, and this article is a "yes" to Wikipedia:The one question). Lastly, For some backwards reason the focus is always on deletion rather than improvement, (but, I hear you say, isn't the whole point of editing Wikipedia to delete others articles?) but I spent hours doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". As one user stated in another deletion discussion, "expansion... renders the above WP:WIKILAWYERING a moot point". Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having some secondary coverage is not sufficient for a source to count towards GNG. And, as explained to you several times, "the forward Robert Zebelyan, quite well-known in the post-Soviet space" comes from a press release, not that a single sentence is worth anything to GNG.

Part of objectivity is maintaining appropriate weight and proportion in an article. Each item derived from routine media is (basically by definition) a WP:MINORASPECT and thus is not encyclopedic to include in the body of an article, which is part of why it doesn't contribute to notability. An article that merely states which teams a subject played for and when, and their basic stats, is just prosifying details from the infobox without adding context from secondary independent RS about why those things are important. Your "expansion" is almost entirely "Zebelyan signed for [team] in [year]" supplemented with non-independently-sourced content: a spot check reveals almost every single fact in the "club career" section is sourced directly to quotes from the subject or affiliates or to press releases. That is not acceptable for any biography, let alone a BLP. JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly passes GNG with significant coverage, and lazy analysis by JoelleJay above is clearly not even close to enough to overturn.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's some real irony in a serial drive-by keep !voter calling any source analysis "lazy". JoelleJay (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's some real irony in a staunch supporter of Wikipedia:SNG for another topic where the biography doesn't need to meet WP:GNG being the staunchest advocate of WP:GNG for any other biography besides those ones... (Like I've said before, I support article creation on all topics, but the double standard is very frustrating). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? NPROF? If you follow that guideline at all you would see that I am not a "staunch supporter" whatsoever, however unlike some sports project members I do follow the community consensus on the status and spirit of the guideline and its criteria at AfDs rather than constantly attempting to disrupt its implementation just because I disagree with it. JoelleJay (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Firstly, Responding to JoelleJay's first statement, there are more examples of secondary coverage of this clearly significant topic of interest (at least in Russia and Armenia) (e.g. "In the mid-2000s, Zebelian was considered the terror of all teams of the 1st league of Russia. Having been recognized as the best scorer, Zebelyan also received an invitation from the Armenian national team. Unfortunately, Zebelyan could not stand out at least once during the 7 games he played in the team. And the peak of failures was in 2007. in autumn, it was the match against the Serbian national team, where Zebelyan became one of the anti-heroes of the game together with Ara Hakobyan. Having lost his place in the national team, he could not strengthen himself in Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan and is now in search of a new team", "Two Sochi footballers - Manuk Kakosyan and Robert Zebelyan - are talking... the Sochi Zhemchuzhina was twice at the peak of Russian fame: in 1998, it briefly climbed to second place in the major leagues, and ten years later it hit Moscow with a huge banner “We abandoned Beckham” and an invitation from coach Cherchesov... Robert Zebelyan, the forward of the team that disdained Beckham, sells real estate.", "Recently, the striker, who previously played for Sochi Zhemchuzhina and Krasnodar Kuban, signed a two-year contract with Minsk Dynamo... the forward has already been involved in the Armenian national team, playing a total of 7 matches for it in 2006-2008" etc etc), Secondly, The lack of WP:COMMONSENSE is staggering... there is nothing logically wrong with using a primary source is as a reference for a clearly factual and objective statement in the article (e.g. "Born in Sochi, Soviet Union, Zebelyan played different sports as a child, including tennis, before focusing more on football")... for instance, if there was, then e.g. autobiographies would not be allowed to be cited as references for these kinds of statements. Also, using JoelleJay's logic the entire body of e.g. Martin Harnik would be "not encyclopedic to include in the body of an article"... the Wikipedia:WIKILAWYERING must stop. I am not , I just think we should draw the line between this clear topic of interest who was most likely created by someone who believed Zebelyan was notable enough and an e.g. American coach with no sources starting his hike right nw. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources identified so far are generally not independent of the subject (lots of quote from Zebelyan himself, plenty of club press releases), and those that are independent do not contain in-depth coverage of the subject. Read the coverage you cite above - he didn't achieve success with the Armenia national football team, and he didn't achieve success in the Russian Premier League (either with Kuban or Khimki). He did well in two of his seasons in the Russian second division, but little else. If we follow the spirit but not the letter of the notability guidelines, I don't think most editors would agree that Zebelyan did enough in his career to be notable without the SIRS coverage we normally require. Jogurney (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said primary and non-independent sources couldn't be used, but as our policies say an article cannot be based on them. Sportsperson articles are generally very poor in this regard, and Harnik is no exception (although he at least has relatively substantive SIRS articles like this from which to draw independent material). That many sports editors completely ignore content P&Gs is not surprising, but if an article can be written based on SIGCOV and sub-SIGCOV non-routine SIRS then the current status of the page is just a step in the "eventualism" process and can be fixed through editing. JoelleJay (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, the lack of WP:COMMONSENSE is alarming... deletion editors are so stuck in their own WP:WIKILAWYERING (they are just repeating "our policies say" again and again, like the statement above) that they completely forget the point of the "laws" and Wikipedia itself. The main reason the "laws" were even made to begin with was to combat vandalism, spam, unambiguous self-promotion/advertising, none of which this comprehensive article about a clear topic of interest has, and the main reason Wikipedia was even made to begin with was to be a permanent place of knowledge for topics of interest to people. On top of that, there is a clear difference between a player like e.g. Tiago Quintal or Slaheddine Sebti (both of whom I didn't vote to keep) and a seasoned Armenian international with elite level experience... Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:The rules are principles state "Use common sense in interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; rules have... exceptions" and "They [the "laws"] must be understood in context, using... common sense and discretion". Again, this article is not completely based on primary coverage (see my statements providing a decent amount of examples above), and there is "context from secondary independent RS" supported by secondary coverage in the article. As for the parts that cite primary coverage, they are clearly factual (.g. "Born in Sochi, Soviet Union, Zebelyan played different sports as a child, including tennis, before focusing more on football"), and former Soviet states tend to have interviews as one of the highest forms of sports coverage compared to other countries (again, context), as shown by significant Soviet league players like Almaz Chokmorov, Valery Reinhold, Leanid Harai, Vladimir Bychek, Viktor Razumovskiy, and Yuri Gladkikh not to mention others. Regarding Zebelyan's achievements (even then, my point is not even about his achievements, he is clearly a topic of interest that warrants a Wikipedia page - for instance, he has Wikipedia pages in 9 languages), he played at at an "elite level" (Jogurney's words, also Russia Premier League is considered a top 10 league in Europe), he was clearly considered an Armenian prospect and an important player in the Russian pro leagues. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you essentially asking us to consider WP:IAR? It's a fair argument. I haven't contributed to this discussion but I'm interested to see how it develops. The article's depth is impressive considering the lack of depth in the coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call a prose list of the teams he played for "deep"... One could achieve the same article length for a player who bounced around multiple semi-pro teams and gave a couple interviews. JoelleJay (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Once again, the pro-deletion editors are just giving false statements (The article is clearly not "just a prose list of the teams he played for" and he clearly didn't just give a "couple" interviews, and those interviews combined with secondary coverage result in a decent sized comprehensive article about a player clearly considered an Armenian prospect and an important player in the Russian pro leagues) and/or being pedantic without seeing the bigger picture... the main reason the "laws" were even made to begin with was to combat vandalism, spam, unambiguous self-promotion/advertising, clearly none of which this comprehensive, factual, objective article about a clear topic of interest has, and the main reason Wikipedia was even made to begin with was to be a permanent place of knowledge for topics of interest to people. On top of that, there is a clear difference between a player like e.g. Tiago Quintal or Slaheddine Sebti (both of whom I didn't vote to keep) and Zebelyan, a seasoned Armenian international with elite level experience... Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:The rules are principles clearly state "Use common sense in interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; rules have... exceptions" and "They [the "laws"] must be understood in context, using... common sense and discretion". Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How much material can be written on him purely from secondary, independent, non-routine RS that wouldn't just fit in a stats table or infobox? From the body of the article: (Early life) sentence 1 is sourced to source #1, an interview published by his club Dinamo Minsk N. (Club career) sentences 2 & 3: an interview published by source #2, his club Zhemchuzhina-Sochi N; 4: synthesis from a quote by Kakosyan and later statements in interview source #3 N; 5: a quote from #3 N; 6: a quote from the transcript of interview source #4 N; 7: an interview prompt from source #5 N and a quote from source #6, an interview released by his club N (but could be partially sourced to the one secondary sentence in source #9 maybe Y; 8: #7, a routine press release report N; 9: #8, a blog, which should be removed from the article N; 10: ^{[failed verification]} #9, a routine post-match interview that does not contain any of the info it's supposed to support N; 11: #9, quotes and interview prompt N; 12: #10, quotes from a routine injury report + interview N; 13: #11 SYNTH/OR from a passing mention in a routine match recap N; 14: from the intro to #5 Y; 15 & 16: quotes from interviews #12 N and #13 N; 17: interview prompt from #5 N; 18: quote from #5 N and intro from #10 maybe Y. (International career) 19: ^{[failed verification]} from interview #14 N; 20: synthesis from prompts/quotes in interview #15 N; 21: #8 blog N and dossier stats from #15 maybe Y; 22: quotes from an interview with his club FC Kuban N; 23: ^{[failed verification]}/SYNTH from quotes in interview #17 N; 24: OR from routine press release #18 written by a national team rep N. The final 5 sentences are sourced to quotes from interviews #1, 3, and 6 N. The article utterly fails the policy requirement that it be based on secondary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-

Even without the primary sources, here is purely secondary coverage, many of which has information not in an infobox ... keep in mind this is not including the primary sources which also provide objective, factual information:

"the 22-year-old boy was noticed in Kuban, where he became the team's top scorer in the 2006 season and from where he was regularly called up to the Armenian national team. Moving next season to Khimki... seemed like a step forward, but at the peak of his abilities, Zebelyan decided on a desperate step, once again plunging into the abyss of the PFL in the hope of reviving the Sochi Zhemchuzhina. Alas, the new project, despite a promising start, soon sank into oblivion", "In the mid-2000s, Zebelian was considered the terror of all teams of the 1st league of Russia. Having been recognized as the best scorer, Zebelyan also received an invitation from the Armenian national team. Unfortunately, Zebelyan could not stand out at least once during the 7 games he played in the team. And the peak of failures was in 2007. in autumn, it was the match against the Serbian national team, where Zebelyan became one of the anti-heroes of the game together with Ara Hakobyan. Having lost his place in the national team, he could not strengthen himself in Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan and is now in search of a new team", "Two Sochi footballers - Manuk Kakosyan and Robert Zebelyan - are talking... the Sochi Zhemchuzhina was twice at the peak of Russian fame: in 1998, it briefly climbed to second place in the major leagues, and ten years later it hit Moscow with a huge banner “We abandoned Beckham” and an invitation from coach Cherchesov... Robert Zebelyan, the forward of the team that disdained Beckham, sells real estate", "On January 21, Robert Zebelyan, a former player of the Armenian national football team, underwent an operation in Yerevan. The intervertebral hernia operation was successful, and the football player went to his native Sochi for rehabilitation. Zebelyan played for the last time as part of the Armenian national team in the match against Russia in Yerevan. 2011 since July, he has been playing in "Tobol" of Kazakhstan", "the forward Robert Zebelyan, quite well-known in the post-Soviet space" (I know its from the club, but they ' clearly wouldn't be saying this about any player...), "Robert Zebelyan, the striker of the Armenian national team and "Dynamo" of Minsk, has recently participated very little in his team's matches, but during the preparatory phase and in the first matches of the Belarusian championship, he played an effective game" , "On Saturday, the fans of Minsk "Dynamo" finally felt relieved. First, the team scored after a goalless streak of 403 minutes. Secondly, she won after four rounds since the last victory. Thirdly, it dispelled (so far) the clouds that had already gathered over Oleg Vasilenko. Although minimal, but such a pleasant victory became possible thanks to the goal of the Armenian striker Robert ZEBELYAN... who is still settling in the capital of Belarus", "In 2006, Robert Zebelyan became the most productive player in the first division, scoring 23 goals for Kuban. Now Robert mainly comes on as a substitute in Baltika"...

As for the primary sources, unless you think he is somehow lying or has an "agenda" (both of which clearly aren't true) when he says, among other examples, that he "played different sports as a child, including tennis, before focusing more on football" or that he "initially operated as a defender [as a youth player] before starting to operate as a striker", or "Kuban Krasnodar were initially reluctant to let him play for the Armenia national football team due to the congestion of fixtures in the Russian second tier but they eventually let represent Armenia internationally" (he said this in interviews, and a Kuban Krasnodar official verified it in a separate interview by a separate source), or "However, during the 2007 season, he made significantly less appearances for Kuban Krasnodar due to the manager (Pavlo Yakovenko) trusting him less as the 2007 season began, even after he scored during preseason friendlies" (the journalist interviewing Zebelyan for eurofootball essentially said this) or "Zebelyan's father had to buy his transfer rights so he could play for Zhemchuzhina Sochi" (the journalist asking Zebelyan about this knew about this and was aware of this already, and Zebelyan merely confirmed it) or "Zebelyan has a wife and son", there is no logical reason why these primary sources can't be used for these objective, factual statements that provide background information and can't be found in an infobox (again, context and common sense, its not as if I wrote in the article something based on a quote from him like "Upon arrival to Kuban Krasnodar, the manager told him "you're not part of my plans" ). Another aspect is that former Soviet states tend to have interviews as one of the highest forms of sports coverage compared to other countries like e.g. Indonesia and Vietnam, which tend to have much less straight-up interviews in sports coverage (again, context), as shown by significant Soviet league players like Almaz Chokmorov, Valery Reinhold, Leanid Harai, Vladimir Bychek, Viktor Razumovskiy, and Yuri Gladkikh not to mention others.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... there is not much WP:COMMONSENSE from the deletion side who are missing the point/bigger picture... the main reason the "policy "requirements" were even made to begin with was to combat vandalism, spam, unambiguous self-promotion/advertising, and false information, clearly none of which this comprehensive, factual, objective article about a clear topic of interest has, even with these primary sources, and the main reason Wikipedia was even made to begin with was to be a permanent place of knowledge for topics of interest to people.

On top of that, the fact that, years after his retirement, third party news portals are conducting in-depth interviews of him that go through his entire career, early life, post-playing career etc, show that he is clearly a topic of interest to people and that he was a significant figure in Russian pro league football (not to mention an Armenian prospect).

The entire time I'm using effort to try to improve the article while deletionists are using all their effort to delete this comprehensive article about a clear topic of interest through being pedantic and WP:WIKILAWYERING. (Maybe I'm wrong though... maybe the entire point of editing Wikipedia is deleting others hard work through being pedantic and WP:WIKILAWYERING...).

Using common sense, there is a clear difference between a player like e.g. Tiago Quintal or Slaheddine Sebti (both of whom I didn't vote to keep) and Zebelyan, a seasoned Armenian international with "elite level" (Jogurney's words) experience (Zebelyan plauyed in Russian Premier League, which is regarded as top 10 league in Europe).

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:The rules are principles clearly state "Use common sense in interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; rules have... exceptions" and "They [the "laws"] must be understood in context, using... common sense and discretion".

Furthermore, many times the pro deletion editors like JoelleJay have gave false statements about the article, here are two examples among others by them (others examples explained in my other statements above) -

First example:

Their "Source analysis" of 9: "a routine post-match interview that does not contain any of the info [in the Wikipedia page] it's supposed to support" (the Wikipedia page says "In 2007, he signed for Khimki, where he mainly appeared as a substitute"). However, the journalist author of the source, (also the source is not merely routine), writes in the source, "In 2006, Robert Zebelyan became the most productive player in the first division, scoring 23 goals for Kuban. Now Robert mainly comes on as a substitute in Baltika"

Second example:

Their claim that the article is just "details from the infobox without adding context": Just looking at the first paragraph alone, it states that "Zebelyan scored 23 goals for Kuban Krasnodar, becoming the club's top scorer that season and one of the top scorers of the league that season. However, during the 2007 season, he made significantly less appearances for Kuban Krasnodar due to the manager (Pavlo Yakovenko) trusting him less as the 2007 season began, even after he scored during preseason friendlies. Kuban Krasnodar were initially reluctant to let him play for the Armenia national football team due to the congestion of fixtures in the Russian second tier but they eventually let represent Armenia internationally. During the middle of the 2000s, Zebelyan was considered a consistent goalscoring threat in the Russian second tier.", etc etc among other examples, most of which aren't found in an infobox... I also added context with references (besides above and other examples) like "His first stint for Zhemchuzhina Sochi was only a few years after the club's only spell in the Russian Premier League", "Zebelyan dropped a division to return to Zhemchuzhina Sochi with the aim of resurrecting the club's fortunes, but the club dissolved a few seasons later", "He scored his first goal for Dinamo Minsk during a 1–0 win over Dnepr, the club's first win in four matches and the first goal his team scored after a goalless streak of 403 minutes, and temporarily eased the pressure on then Dinamo Minsk manager Oleg Vasilenko", "In 2008, Zebelyan signed for Baltika Kaliningrad, where he wore the unusual number ninety-nine on his jersey, (the journalist for championat.com wrote that the number was unusual) etc etc among other examples.

Since I doubt you (JoelleJay) will ever change your mind... lets just agree to disagree and leave it to the rest of the community to come to consensus... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POLICY: Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. [material from the subject] may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.

POLICY: Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

POLICY: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia

POLICY: the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources.

NBIO: Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

N: Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written

It does not matter that primary/non-independent sources are factual and verifiable or that they provide helpful context. Articles cannot be based on them; they have to be a minority of the content.

1.

Their "Source analysis" of 9: "a routine post-match interview that does not contain any of the info [in the Wikipedia page] it's supposed to support" (the Wikipedia page says "In 2007, he signed for Khimki, where he mainly appeared as a substitute"). However, the journalist author of the source, (also the source is not merely routine), writes in the source, "In 2006, Robert Zebelyan became the most productive player in the first division, scoring 23 goals for Kuban. Now Robert mainly comes on as a substitute in Baltika"

That source does not say anything about him playing for Khimki.

2.

Their claim that the article is just "details from the infobox without adding context"

I specifically said Your "expansion" is almost entirely "Zebelyan signed for [team] in [year]" supplemented with non-independently-sourced content. That is an objective fact: the vast majority of the article comes directly from quotes from the subject.

Even without the primary sources, here is purely secondary coverage,

The plurality of the content you quote comes from the source that Jogurney and I have both pointed out to you is a blog. Claiming it as an example of secondary coverage is deliberately misleading since it is not RS! Another couple large chunks of the quoted "coverage" only contain a combined total of <35 words that are actually directly on Zebelyan. You also still included the quote from the club about him that obviously doesn't count toward SIGCOV. The remaining 4 sources amount to the sole non-trivial piece of coverage, which nevertheless is only 3 sentences; another 3 sentences distributed across 2 sources; and a routine injury announcement almost certainly derived from a press release. JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing the process with your WP:WALLSOFTEXT. You’ve already made your point. Many editors disagree with your interpretation of policy. Frank Anchor 23:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more assessments of the sources. Das osmnezz, if you continue to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion with walls of texts, you may be blocked from contributing to it further, and such contributions will almost certainly be disregarded by the closer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources look ok-ish, it's generally more than what we have for other athletes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think some of the points raised by Das osmnezz are fair arguments, and there does appear to be some coverage of him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe there's more than enough sources here.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough reliable secondary coverage provided by Das osmnezz to warrant the article being kept. Frank Anchor 21:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frank (and @Oaktree b), the "secondary coverage" quoted by Das Osmnezz above is highly misleading. 6 of the sentences come from a blog; out of the ~70 words in one example, only 13 are actually on Zebelyan; out of the ~75 words in another example, only ~25 are about Zebelyan (in the context of a routine match recap); one example is straight from his club; another two examples contain a combined 3 sentences appearing in the preface to interviews; and 4 sentences are from a routine injury announcement. The only non-trivial source quoted here is just 3 sentences. JoelleJay (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Frank Anchor essentially stated above, you have been WP:BLUDGEONING the same pedantic point (WP:WIKILAWYERING) over and over to my various points above and that lots of editors disagree with your interpretation (as shown by the keep votes above). For the final time, how about we agree to disagree and leave it to the rest of the community to come to consensus... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Das osmnezz Judging from your walls of text above, I'm not sure you are in the best position of accusing other editors of WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:WIKILAWYERING. Alvaldi (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Anchor above was the first to accuse them of bludgeoning, but anyways, WP:BLUDGEONING is "making the same argument/point (in this case, a pedantic point - WP:WIKILAWYERING) over and over, to different people", which is exactly what they are doing, while I use various arguments using WP:COMMONSENSE. We can agree to disagree and leave it to others. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that both JoelleJay and Das osmnezz have bludgeoned the process by attempt[ing] to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Frank Anchor 13:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reading your walls of text, keep it short or please stop badgering people here. Oaktree b (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

? My comment is just 4 lines on my screen. The even shorter version is: out of the 500 words claimed to be "secondary coverage" above, about half are from a blog or a club press release or don't contain any coverage of Zebelyan. The remainder are distributed across six mostly primary and/or routine sources: 40 words on average. JoelleJay (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So throughout all of the sources, there are several sentences of significant, independent coverage. Per WP:NBIO, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. As you allude to in your response to me, several sources have small amounts of significant, independent coverage. These can be cobbled together to allow Mr. Zebelyan' to be considered notable. Frank Anchor 14:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that any of the coverage is significant or even substantial, and anyway most of the sources are primary and/or routine match recaps, injury announcements, or transfer/signing coverage containing the typical 2–5 sentences of career background that accompany such articles, which the community (including some keep !voters here, pre NSPORTS2022) has long dismissed as insufficient to count towards notability. JoelleJay (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think it's a violation of BLUDGEONING to ask editors to discuss the sources. There are a number of editors !voting keep in this discussion who simply say the sources look good or meet GNG with no explanation of how that's possible. I, and other editors, have discussed the sources in detail, and they come up woefully short of the GNG. Hopefully, the closer will heavily discount the !votes that claim the available sources are sufficient without any actual discussion of them. (BTW, it's quite obvious which editor has been posting walls of text here repeatedly - they were already admonished by the relisting admin so hopefully they stop.) Jogurney (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its BLUDGEONING to ask about the big picture. Although others (who have discussed the sources), and I think it meets GNG, using WP:COMMONSENSE: even if article "based on" primary, the secondary source "law" exists merely to ensure what article is already: comprehensive, objective, factual and clear topic of interest, no deletion reason. Das osmnezz (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

even if article "based on" primary, the secondary source "law" exists merely to ensure what this article already is: comprehensive, objective, factual and a clear topic of interest, no deletion reason The subject is not an objective source on themselves, and primary sources cannot be evaluated for proportionality, so you have no basis for the claim that the article is any of those things. And anyway the secondary coverage requirement does not exist "merely to ensure" an article has those properties: I quoted three separate P&Gs that say primary sources do not establish a topic's notability. You are also completely ignoring the policy that the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources and that a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news (a policy that is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus, not to mention NOTNEWS and INDISCRIMINATE. JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:RAP, WP:5p, WP:POL, no guideline is "non-negotiable" and "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus". Whatever your legalese/pedantic objectivity stance, using WP:COMMONSENSE, unless you think they are lying/have agenda, statements from the subject like "I played different sports as a child, including tennis, before focusing more on football" or "I initially operated as a defender [as a youth player] before starting to operate as a striker" etc are all clearly objective and factual, so even if this article was completely based on primary (which many editors and I refute), there's no reason why in these situations an article can't be based on primary sources.Wikipedia is not a bureacruacy. Whatever your legalese/pedantic notability stance, using WP:COMMONSENSE, the fact that, years after his retirement, third-party portals are giving in-depth interviews of him combined with lots of coverage during his career, secondary or primary, many of which went into his early life, entire career etc, clearly show notability. As one user said, deletionists "have their noses so far into the policies that they can only see them in black and white... there is color, nuance, and even gray areas... Our policies... are not supposed to be rigid". For the last time, lets agree to disagree and leave it to others. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both you (Das) and Joelle need to stop it and let the community decide what's best here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus is directly from the policy NPOV. If you have problems with it, take it to VPP. JoelleJay (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Participants at AfD that habitually ignore core policy such as WP:V and WP:BLP to bludgeon discussions are causing a lot of disruption, contributing to a (continuing) toxic environment at AfD. Das osmnezz's walls of text here are a perfect example of toxic bludgeoning and ignoring policy. Regardless of the outcome of this particular discussion, there is no way this type of participation should be allowed to continue.

In this case the disruptive editor has already been warned to stop in the relisting comment by an admin, but they have continued (see page history). These bludgeoning walls of text are making any close determination difficult to impossible and is disruptive. Admins need to address this. How anyone is supposed to make heads or tails of this discussion is beyond me. // Timothy :: talk 13:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source eval per relisting request:

Promotional Question and Answer style interview. Fails WP:IS. Interviews do not make a subject notable	1. "Robert Zabelyan: I think we'll make a lot of noise in the Belarusian Championship". pressball.by.
A promotional blog post sourced from the team. Fails WP:IS, WP:RS	2. ^Jump up to:a b "INTRODUCING THE TEAM'S BEST SCORE POINT".
States: "The leader of the first team, Manuk Kakosyan, works in Adler as the director of a sports complex, and Robert Zebelyan, the forward of the team that disdained Beckham, sells real estate." Fails WP:SIGCOV	3. ^Jump up to:a b c ""AFTER GOING TO THE FNL THERE WAS A BANQUET WITH VIAGRA AND KSENIYA SOBCHAK". WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CITY WHERE THE RUSSIA TEAM PLAYED" . matchtv.ru.
Promotional Question and Answer style interview. Fails WP:IS. Interviews do not make a subject notable	4. ^ Jump up to:a b "Robert Zebelian: "I don't know why I don't get into the first team of Kuban"". euro-football.ru.
Promotional Question and Answer style interview. Fails WP:IS. Interviews do not make a subject notable	5. ^Jump up to:a b c d "Robert Zebelian: I hurried with leaving Kuban". sportfiction.ru
Promotional Question and Answer style interview. Fails WP:IS. Interviews do not make a subject notable	6. ^Jump up to:a b "Robert Zebelian: "In Zhemchuzhina I played with Ruslan Baltiev"". sports.kz.
Interview with source connected to player and team. Fails WP:IS	7. ^ "Chairman of the board of directors of Kuban: "Zebelyan received a portion of confidence in the Armenian national team"". armenia-online.ru.
Blog post with one paragraph. Fails WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV	8. ^ Jump up to:a b "20 Armenian football players who did not live up to expectations".
Promotional Question and Answer style interview. Fails WP:IS. Interviews do not make a subject notable	9. ^Jump up to:a b "Zebelyan: first lap played very badly". championat.com.
Promotional Question and Answer style interview. Fails WP:IS. Interviews do not make a subject notable	10. ^Jump up to:a b "Robert Zebelyan. I underwent an operation in Yerevan on the advice of Roman Berezovsky.news.am.
Routine article/blog about a game. States "Robert Zebelyan, was alone against the goalkeeper of our national team" Fails WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV	11. ^ "Robert Zebelyan upset Roman Berezovsky" . aysor.am
Promotional Question and Answer style interview. Fails WP:IS. Interviews do not make a subject notable	12. ^Jump up to:a b "Robert Zebelyan. I want to move to another club in the summer.tert.am Archived fromthe originalon April 7, 2023. Retrieved 7 April 2023.
Promotional Question and Answer style interview. Fails WP:IS. Interviews do not make a subject notable	13. ^Jump up to:a b "Robert Zebelyan: every year Oleg Vasilenko becomes a more mature mentor". pressball.by.
Interview with subject. Contain very brief background. Fails WP:SIGCOV	14. ^ "Robert Zebelyan: "I will join the Armenian national team, but only in a year"". regnum.ru.
Promotional Question and Answer style interview. Fails WP:IS. Interviews do not make a subject notable	15. ^ Jump up to:a b "Robert Zebelyan: Tobol is a team with traditions". sports.kz
Interview with subject. Contain very brief background. Fails WP:SIGCOV	16. ^ "Robert Zebelian: I was 90% sure that I would play for the national team" . yuga.ru.
Interview with subject. Contain very brief background about a game. Fails WP:SIGCOV	17. ^ "Robert Zebelian: Armenia national team suffered from UEFA verdict" . aze.az.
Routine sports story about player being called up. Routine, nothing SIGCOV and the source for the article is the coach of the team. Fails WP:IS, WP:SIGCOV	18. ^ "Zebelyan to be called up for match with Russia" . sport-express.ru

Most of the sources are promotional interviews, mainly question and answer style interviews. These all fail WP:IS, WP:COISOURCE. Guideline states, "Non-independent sources may not be used to establish notability." None of these can be considered when evaluating a subjects notability.
There are two blog style posts that fail WP:RS
The remaining are brief mentions failing WP:SIGCOV.
The spam keep refs simply serve to show that the subject is not notable.
The Keep arguments above are either "Me too" votes or points that fall outside of policy and guidelines, ignore the requirements of BLP which states, "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"', and openly reject the recent consensus regarding the change to NSPORTS.

Article fails notability requirements.

The disruption in this article needs to be addressed. // Timothy :: talk 14:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see brief mentions of coverage in 3, 14, 16, and 17. Probably more if I have a more thorough look through. Per WP:NBIO, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. This source analysis therefore solidifies my “keep” vote. Frank Anchor 23:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3 has almost zero secondary commentary. 14 has less than one full independent sentence on him. 16 is one sentence in a report directly from the FC Kuban website (the non-quote material is churnalized too), so fails independence. 17 is less than a sentence ("Forward of the Armenian national football team Robert Zebelyan, who recently replaced Krasnodar Kuban with Khimki near Moscow") prefacing a routine interview. Come on. JoelleJay (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch on 16 only, as I missed the reference to the Kuban site. However, the remaining small bits and pieces referenced by JoelleJay and TimothyBlue combine to be enough for a pass of NBIO. Frank Anchor 12:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ . No prejudice against a renomination in 1 or 2 months from now. Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artists' Collecting Society[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable company in the United Kingdom. Only reference is a link to the company's website; the article has been tagged as needing inline citations (and more references, really) since April 2015. A WP:BEFORE search turned up mostly Wiki mirrors, social media pages, and casual mentions that the group existed - nothing that really fit for WP:GNG. There was a larger addition added, but I had to revert it for WP:COPYVIO, along with an edit from a user that seems to be the group itself. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fuzzy510, I am unclear why you have nominated the Artists' Collecting Society page for deletion. As you will be able to see from a google search, the Artists' Collecting Society is one of two collecting societies responsible for administering the Artist's Resale Right (ARR), representing some of the leading artists of the 20th and 21st century. Furthermore, there is a plethora of references to the Artists' Collecting Society in external websites, including but not limited to; UK Government Intellectual Property, British Copyright Council and CISAC. I noticed the page had artists that were out of date and needed to be updated. All of the changes I have made and was in the process of making have been deleted. Please can I ask you to refrain from deleting anything further from the entry, so I can ensure it is fully up-to-date and fully cited. Acsartists (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page clearly needed references, so I looked up two trusted sources: the UK government site Gov.UK and ArtQuest, which is a public programme of University of the Arts London supported by Arts Council England. Now that these references have been added, I do not see any reason why this page should be deleted. The purpose of this article seems to be to explain what ACS does, which is of public interest. Mrk421 (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

for the sake of parsing this AfD I'd like that add Keep. Mrk421 (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Mrk421 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 16:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Organizations. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant copyright collective for the uk. The specialist media will have SIGCOVER, much of it paywalled. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

useful resource for art historians/marketplace so don't see this as meriting AfD. KEEP BvrdPcht84 (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

realizing I didn't place my request in BOLD for automation/maintenance tools working through AfDs...to reiterate earlier, KEEP BvrdPcht84 (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— BvrdPcht84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 16:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need policy based input from established editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A ProQuest Art, Design & Architecture search does turn up a few specialist references: Ben Wright, Art Market: Law and Art in Apollo 166 (2007) "details the Artists' Collecting Society's first year of collecting and paying out the proceeds of artist's resale rights"; Henry Lydiate, Fourth Year Report in Art Monthly 333 (2010) and Artist's Resale Right in Art Monthly 395 (2016) describe ARR and both collecting societies in a fair amount of detail. However, the other collecting society Design and Artists Copyright Society is also a fairly short article whose notability has been queried in the past; given that coverage tends to talk about both together, maybe merging them into an "Artist's Resale Right in the UK" article would work better? Adam Sampson (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have no objection to a merge, but the information ought to be retained somewhere. How artistic resale rights and copyright are handled in a major English speaking country of 60 million inhabitants is definitely of legitimate encyclopaedic interest to English-speaking readers. Elemimele (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input by experienced editors; the comments by WP:COI/WP:SPA editors will need to be discounted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buda, Nebraska[edit]

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

Nebraska Place Names mentions a railroad station here; no evidence of a notable community. –dlthewave ☎ 18:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nebraska. –dlthewave ☎ 18:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what township is it in, if any? Would that be a possible redirect target? Does it still exist? There is no content here other than a name and an indication that a post office might have once been located there. Google Search results are filled with auto-generated spam, and also references to a place in Lancaster County, Nebraska, but nothing reliable about this one. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Fitzpatrick's Nebraska Place-Names refers to Buda as "town" (back when it was called Shelby). It's unclear from the text whether the place had ever been incorporated (which would make it inherently notable) or if it's just a sloppy use of the term, but it's probably worth searching for additional sources before deleting this for good.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 3, 2023; 05:20 (UTC) 05:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NGEO. Another place name connected to the wave of CE immigation, but no indication this meets GEO. If any sources exist, I think they will be in sources about Hungarian immigration, not railroad sources. Ping me if sources are found and added to article. // Timothy :: talk 05:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 08:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kearn(e)y Station (1866), Shelby (1876), Buda (1878)[40][41] Was prominent enough at the time for an appearance in Around the World in Eighty Days, but don't confuse with the stage stop. fiveby(zero) 21:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis,Mark R; Stauffer, Heather E. (2006). Kearney. p. 44.
"Several Hundred Lost Towns Once Sought Greatness". March 31, 1910. was carried by a number of Nebraska papers and has The most famous was Kearney station. This was located across the Platte river from old Fort Kearney... but unfortunately goes on to confuse with Fort Kearny Station the stage stop west of the fort.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:GEOLAND requires non-trivial sources to meet GNG for places lacking legal recognition. The above are simple mentions, nothing which meets SIGCOV for passing GNG; they show nothing other than existence and existence doesn't mean notability. // Timothy :: talk 11:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You bolded added to article above, so adding to the article i was. There's not a great deal to say about "Buda: The oldest "Town" in Buffalo County" but there is something mildly interesting, it just takes a bit of time and effort. But if WP:GEOLAND frowns on unincorporated places, railroad stations and immigration from central Europe and calls for it to be deleted, then i've sure got better thing to do than go looking for sources. fiveby(zero) 13:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies GNG for places. Djflem (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (barely): The source above "Buda: The oldest "Town" in Buffalo County" is interesting. It clearly existed and has a some history. Its not a BLP, so think this article won't hurt anything if it remains. The above source persuades me more that there would probably be information in immigration sources. A local historical society [42] might be able to point to sources. I'll own up to a bit or two of ILIKEIT on this one. // Timothy :: talk 15:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the edge of OR and RS, but 19th century should probably get a little break, it's a lot more work. The real value to WP here i think will be a link to Moses H. Sydenham. fiveby(zero) 15:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (nom) now that we have some sources and history. –dlthewave ☎ 00:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . Star Mississippi 14:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelicals Now[edit]

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

Non-notable newspaper, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMAGAZINE. Both sources in the article are primary sources and I can find very little elsewhere, beyond passing mentions. It is treated at some length by this one book but the book is published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing which has questionable reliability. WJ94 (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Christianity, and United Kingdom. WJ94 (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think it is highly questionable whether a newspaper with a small readership is notable. I am sure it is important to the community concerned, but it only suitable for an article on en.wiki if it meets the GNG, and I don't see any RS that are suitable. It is tough to assess the notability of media as they're often not discussed in other media. To me, this transparently isn't notable. JMWt (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This publication has started a few debates on The Gospel Coalition's website, but I accept that it does not achieve sufficient notability for an article here. Nevertheless, it would be useful for this information to be preserved somewhere, e.g. as I have suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evangelical Times by transwiki to WikiChristian or Theopedia. – Fayenatic London 15:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that I'm misunderstanding something but it appears that the transwiki policy you link to here is about moving pages to other language wikipedias. And the wikis you suggest surely have nothing to do with this project nor need assistance from us. If they haven't already used the relevant pages from en.wiki, I think it is absolutely fine to expect someone there to do their own work without assisting them to do it on non-notable en.wiki subjects. JMWt (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those wikis you mention are completely unrelated to Wikipedia and, to be honest, it is not our job to provide content for them. If they want to write article on these publications, they are free to do so but that shouldn't interrupt our processes. Further, I think there would be issues with them directly importing material from Wikipedia since to do so would require attribution, which in turn would require keeping the history of the article (if I have interpreted that correctly). WJ94 (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a specialist periodical with a circulation of 6000 seems to me worthy of a WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 million evangelicals in the UK (see refs here); 6000 is not very large in that context In any case, GNG is still not met, nor are any of the criteria at WP:NMAGAZINE. WJ94 (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ , but move to Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act which I will do on closure. Star Mississippi 14:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Senate Bill 1953[edit]

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

No demonstrated notability InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. This is a prosaic, run-of-the-mill law.TH1980 (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act. This Act, sometimes called Senate Bill 1953, satisfies GNG. It has received significant coverage in many books and periodical articles. A search for something like "Senate Bill 1953"+seismic [43] and "S B 1953"+seismic [44] and "SB 1953"+hospital etc might have helped to identify many of these, although they are not particularly difficult to find with direct searches. The Act is also part of the Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act, also called the Alquist Act, and by various other names and citations. The Alquist Act in turn is part of the California Health and Safety Code. I think it would be easier to write and expand an article about the Alquist Act as a whole, so I support a move to the broader topic. James500 (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does that relate to Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone Act? BruceThomson (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell there is more than one Alquist Act. The new short title of this Alquist Act, which was given by SB 850, chapter 1989/396, is the "Alfred E Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983". The former short title was the "Hospital Seismic Safety Act", and it actually dates to 1973. The new date of 1983 refers to an amendment that was made in that year: [45]. Senate Bill 1953 of 1994 itself is an amendment to the said Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act. James500 (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move: per sources such as shown abovv by James500. // Timothy :: talk 15:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Snowgoons. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient, however this is a viable AtD. Star Mississippi 14:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sicknature[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not seem to have notability outside of Snowgoons. No indication of passing WP:BAND, and not one source supports WP:GNG. Perhaps there are some Danish sources I haven't come across Mbdfar (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Denmark. 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘈𝘺𝘩𝘢𝘯07 02:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article was deleted before for a reason. Son Of The Desert (Talk) 13:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What reason would that be? You need to provide a valid reason and not refer to something like that as a reason. Royal88888 (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is enough coverage and he meets WP:MUSICBIO. He is also part of producer group Snowgoons so check news coverage on that as well. Check 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.Royal88888 (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal88888: there is absolutely not enough coverage. You just posted a bunch of junk links. One of them is about a bicycle - did you even read them? Snowgoons seem notable, Sicknature is not notable outside of the group. Sicknature does not qualify for their own article unless you can find WP:RS (check WP:RSP) that directly cover Sicknature themself in depth (independent of Snowgoons). Mbdfar (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry didn't mean to add that one and one was a duplicate...I have removed 3 and added 2 different ones.Royal88888 (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Snowgoons, the only sourcing available on Sicknature specifically is clearly unreliable and as such he fails WP:GNG, but the group he is a part of seems notable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Rollins Barker[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 15 years. Ambassadors are not inherently notable nor does WP:NPOL apply. No coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Mauritius, Somalia, Tanzania, Greece, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nomination. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL. Charsaddian (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and I could not find any sources with a Gsearch Nagol0929 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . It may be ineligible for soft deletion, but no one is contesting this. Star Mississippi 14:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Shanley[edit]

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

None of the sources are reliable, and I can't find any actual WP:SIGCOV. Does not seem to be notable. PopoDameron ⁠talk 01:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. PopoDameron ⁠talk 01:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We really need reliable sources for BLPs. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ . Will this be long term notable? Unclear. But at the moment, there is consensus to keep and this can be revisited once the original news settles. Star Mississippi 14:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Rutgers University strike[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSUSTAINED, WP:NEVENTS, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. An event happening and being reported on is not sufficient for Wikipedia notability; it must demonstrate lasting significance beyond the time and place that it occurred. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New Jersey. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aintabli (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given similarly topical articles such as 2021–2022 Columbia University strike and 2022 University of California academic workers' strike, pages on strikes have relevance. There is added historical significance for this case as well. FelpixTheMaker (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - in reply to the above !vote, WP:OSE is seldom a viable argument at AFD. I think you are confused about what constitutes a secondary source. At this early date, journalistic sources are all going to be primary sources as they will only be eyewitness accounts with little in depth analysis (and how valid is any analysis of an ongoing event?) By definition, any accounts made now will lack the in depth analysis required to be secondary due to lack of perspective only time can provide. At best, this is way TOOSOON, rendering this an unnecessary WP:FORK. I was going to !vote merge, but upon closer inspection of the suite of articles on Rutgers, the entire suite needs a ton of work. The mother article is in desperate need of forking (it's longer than articles on major countries for Pete's sake) and it appears someone started doing that at some point. At best, for now this is a couple sentences in either a recent history section or the history article. As where to put it can't even be clearly defined the only viable option is to delete with an option to recreate once time has given perspective on the event. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Was going to abstain from the deletion discussion but I have to dispute some of your points. Secondary sources already exist for the strike action- the Reactions section contains several articles which contextualize the strike and analyze it in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, a left-wards shift in the Democratic Party, and a demonstration of the shifting dynamics of Gen Z. The great majority of strike articles for the past 10 years are nearly-entirely sourced by contemporary articles, and that doesn't discount the depth of their analysis. The 2020 Michigan graduate students' strike, for example, is entirely sourced by "primary sources" written near the dates of their events, and yet it still provides an in-depth and contextualized overview of the subject. I understand being concerned about the shallowness of sources given how recent this event is, but that doesn't automatically discount the existence of well-researched sources just because they aren't written years in retrospect.
  
  Assuming you meant to write Wikipedia:CFORK, I don't see how any of this article is covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. The Rutgers article is indeed very large, but not atypical when it comes to university articles- the mother article for Rutgers is shorter than that for the University of Florida and Arizona State University, both of which are smaller in terms of enrollment. Even if you look at GA or FA only, Columbia University and Pomona College are less than half the population of Rutgers and have much larger articles. This isn't to imply that they should be cut down either- they are fantastic articles as is and I only bring them up to demonstrate that universities can and benefit from having large articles.
  
  HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. WP:NEVENT does not state that events must act as a precedent or catalyst for something else, it just says that events are commonly considered notable if they do. The fact that this is the first strike in the school's history is covered by quite a few sources including CNN, the NY Times (which admittedly is a bit more local), USA Today, etc. This happened after a year of bargaining failed to reach a conclusion, so I do not think WP:NOTNEWS applies here either - the lead-up to the strike is quite significant. WP:SUSTAINED says that Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability, but since the strike has started just recently and has attracted a large amount of comprehensive news coverage, it does meet the WP:GNG. I don't think we are in a position to assess whether the coverage is sustained just yet, however. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid rationale for deletion provided. In particular, demanding it must demonstrate lasting significance beyond the time and place that it occurred is generally impossible for contemporaneous events, many of which have coverage. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even though I understand this is a historic strike to the university (and the first in its history), it is without any doubt that while I absolutely agree on the fact that while we can improve the article, I feel the rationale given to delete this wiki is not justifiable. I also have to agree with many of the points that were given, especially with the extensive news coverage which has made it notable. I do think we can look into deeper analyses on what we can improve, especially to how the unions ended up to striking and the lead up. Remember, there were under negotiations for a long time. However, I feel it is possible we should keep on helping out making it more better down the road. 20chances (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considering it has been widely reported on across the United States (WP:DEPTH and WP:GEOSCOPE) and involves such a large number of people, this strike definitely has great significance. As another has already mentioned, WP:NEVENT merely says Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else and, in fact, specifically says This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. It is also far too soon to say that the article is not high quality enough to keep. There has been little time for it to be edited yet. Bryce Springfield (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, leaning Keep - per reasons mentioned above. Ayyydoc (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Numerous reactions and references (58) but I haven’t heard about this on Long Island, so I don’t know if it actually meets notability guidelines outside NJ. 98.116.131.119 (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just anecdotal, but I've been hearing about this from within NYC. Not sure if LI and NYC share a television market, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I co-sign Epicgenius' point - it's been spoken about here in the city. Ayyydoc (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is national news and you can find numerous instances of this being reported or categorized as such. In addition, many of these articles describe the strike as "historic" or "unprecedented" for US higher education. I can tell you from my own anecdote that people in my community in Florida were talking about it, especially educators--that might not be all that useful compared to what media actually says (which I just linked to), but I'm just trying to fully illustrate my perspective. Bryce Springfield (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Although I think NOTNEWS does not apply here, it's too soon to realize if there had been a "lasting significance beyond the time and place." Also, the event is a historical one making it highly notable. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Walt Yoder. It's premature to evaluate whether the nom's charges are true. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing here demonstrating broad coverage in reliable and verifiable sources demonstrates notability. Alansohn (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Morehouse College. Viable AtD. Should the addition not end up sourced, this can be handled at RfD. Star Mississippi 14:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Packwood[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WThis subject does not meet the reliable, significant coverage from multiple, independent sources. It fails Wikipedia:GNG. The article is Wikipedia:ONEEVENT. Mpen320 (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Georgia (U.S. state), and Missouri. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a valedictorian. Aintabli (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still not enough for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Weak redirect. Redirection to Morehouse College looks like a sensible alternative to deletion. Otherwise, the situation looks like a classic case of WP:BLP1E, with sources having no mention of the subject's life after graduation in 2008. The only thing that gives me pause is this 2016 CNN piece [46], which might tend to point to persistant coverage of the sort that overcomes WP:BLP1E. Since I didn't find much else past 2008, and since the CNN piece appears to retread the same ground as the 2008 coverage, I wind up at redirect. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would agree with a redirect if the article had better sourcing. Until then, I'm leaning towards a delete . Fad Ariff (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fad Ariff: Adding sources to an article that will very likely be redirected or deleted seems silly, but the valedictorian bit was covered by several major news websites: in addition to the 2016 CNN piece, there are [47][48][49]; also coverage in the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education [50]. A search for Joshua Packwood Morehouse will come up with plenty more. If you're taking the time to !vote, why not do the search yourself?? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the content could be merged into the history section of the college. BhamBoi (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Mystery Science Theater 3000#Fandom. Viable AtD. History is under the redirect for anything that needs merging. Star Mississippi 14:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Archive Project[edit]

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

Non-notable "archive" project. No sources in the article whatsoever, and I am unable to find any solid sources or coverage of this website. At least half of the article was simply copied-and-pasted from a Fandom article of the same name, which also has no sources. Tagged for notability since 2010. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Organizations. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no sources, and the title is generic enough to make finding any difficult. I did find this, which at least mentions the project in the context of MST3K. Is it possible that a merge could be done to Mystery_Science_Theater_3000#Fandom? STEMinfo (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Mystery Science Theater 3000#Fandom per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion as suggested by STEMinfo. Here is a source I found about the subject:
1. Weiner, Robert G.; Barba, Shelley, eds. (2014). In the Peanut Gallery with Mystery Science Theater 3000: Essays on Film, Fandom, Technology and the Culture of Riffing. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 11, 73, 81, 216. ISBN 978-0-7864-4532-5. Retrieved 2023-04-17 – via Google Books.
  The book notes on page 11: "Twenty years after the little puppet show aired and ten years after its cancellation, MST3K is more popular than ever. Riffing has become its own cultural phenomenon. One can find hundreds of websites related to the show, tape and DVD traders abound, and nearly all of the episodes (including some of the KTMA shows which hopefully will see official release someday) are preserved at the Digital Archive Project in varying degrees of quality."
  The book notes on page 73: "The third way of reference-explaining sites blends the collaboration of discussion forums with the ease of use of annotation pages. By allowing anyone to contribute to the site, they avoid the problem of burnout, and draw on the broad base of knowledge of their many contributors. The Distributed MST3K Annotation Project (n.d.) is an offshoot of one of the most popular sites for episode trading, The Digital Archive Project."
  The book notes on page 81: "Even so, several of those Rhino Home DVD releases gently mock the FBI warnings against privacy and unauthorized distribution by adorning them with an image of J. Edgar Hoover that has been festooned with graffiti, a choice which is yet another example of their tendency to "scribble in the margins" (see Figure 1). They have even turned a blind eye to the virtual tape traders using peer-to-peer sharing software at the Digital Archive Project, so long as episodes that are available for purchase on either DVD or VHS remain unavailable for download ("Digital Archive Project FAQ" 2002)."
  The book notes on page 216: "While I have said that the "circulation" of MST episodes is today dominated by the "second stage" web vendors, it might already be more accurate to say that most new fans actually obtain their episodes through the Digital Archive Project (DAP), a fan collective which aims to make all MST episodes available at all times through bitTorrent, a hugely popular program which allows users to share files with, essentially, anyone online."
Cunard (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of railway stations in Pakistan#Punjab. No trouts or chastisement needed. Suggest toning down the rhetoric when there's an easy solution. Star Mississippi 14:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of railway stations in Muzaffargarh[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NLIST as WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The Anonymous Earthling (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, Pakistan, and Muzaffargarh. The Anonymous Earthling (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prob delete - I can't really see a good reason to !keep, there is already List of railway stations in Pakistan, is the subdivision really justified? I don't feel particularly strongly about this and could be swayed by a good argument otherwise. JMWt (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of railway stations in Pakistan#Punjab. Some of the stations are present, others missing in that list. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge [was "Speedy Keep"]. There is no cause for having AFD discussion here. NLIST requirements are met by "railway stations" being a thing, and it being fine for Wikipedia to have a worldwide list of notable ones, and the world-wide list can be split. Merger to List of railway stations in Pakistan or maintaining split is merely an editing matter for discussion at, probably best, Talk:List of railway stations in Pakistan, with a regular wp:MERGE discussion. Also this is a list of existing Wikipedia articles, so it simply is fine for them to be listed. Maybe they should not be separate articles, and I think it would rather be better for this one to include a table with photos and some or all of the info in the currently separate articles. But merging all of these back to "List of railway stations in Muzaffargarh" is also merely a simple matter of editing / merger proposal. Stop this nonsense and end this AFD before others have to consider the preferred level of merges vs. splits of content. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this should be a section on List of railway stations in Pakistan. (or a new page focused on Punjab, Pakistan). Walt Yoder (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist. Clarification on whether nom's rationale has support would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I changed my !vote above, as Speedy Keep no longer timely. Why was this not closed, long ago? "Speedy Keep" with trout or other chastisement to the deletion nominator would have been best. Deletion nominations about sections of worldwide lists (accepted by NLIST or whatever criteria) should be immediately stopped, by admin intervention. Questions of merging or splitting lists are for editors to consider at Talk pages. There is no way in hell that it makes sense for AFD processes to decide to delete just one geographical area section out of a list-system. If you hate the list-system as a whole, you can take that on, but probably better as an RFC than a multiple page deletion nomination. However, per Clarityfiend's comment, I gather this list overlaps with List of railway stations in Pakistan#Punjab (i.e. there's partial duplication both ways, the two lists seem not to be informed about each other) so it does make sense to merge/recombine the lists. But it also is fine for any editor to split out that list into smaller geographic areas, especially if they will have developed the list to provide more information, photos, coordinates, etc. None of this is for AFD to be deciding. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aostre Johnson[edit]

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

Not seeing GNG/NPROF here Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Vermont. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly doesn't stand out. Aintabli (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could only find a single book with academic reception, namely "Nurturing child and adolescent spirituality: Perspectives from the world's religious traditions" which has 100+ academic citations. However, this may or may not warrant an entry for the book but not the author. --hroest 20:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Also the author of a second book and at least another 25 chapters and articles. Several of these have been cited in the double digits even though the author's field and topic (spiritual approaches in education) are unlikely to be highly cited. Given that the author's career begins prior to most digital publishing, it may be difficult to identify and find any awards, etc. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no reliable sources, no reviews of her books. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no independent sources. Both references cited are self-generated. Multi7001 (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jayme de Amorim Campos[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:NMUSIC. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘈𝘺𝘩𝘢𝘯07 16:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée français Dominique Savio[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Coverage is very limited including a report of covid found at the school and a tree falling over. 2 of the 3 sources are its own website. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Cameroon. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 02:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Babungo Museum[edit]

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’ve added five refs. I don’t see a huge amount of in-depth coverage, but the museum has a scholarly catalogue and is referenced in many books. Mccapra (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst new sources are welcome. I'm not sure some of them meet WP:SIGCOV:

- This one [51] is about the Babungo Mask. The word museum (musee in French), appears only on 1 line.

It tells us that this museum contains 3,000 objects. Mccapra (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

still not WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- This one [52] I'm not sure it's indepth coverage, just single mentions of "Babungo" in a book.

It demonstrates that there is a catalogue. Mccapra (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- This one [53] again not indepth, merely refers to 2 pictures of the museum.

Well it’s all we can see because of google book restrictions, but plainly the work covers material about the design and building of this museum. Mccapra (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the description of the design and building of this museum, somewhere in text in this book? LibStar (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- this one [54], a 1 word mention of Babungo in a 11 page document. LibStar (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it describes the background and context of the creation of museums in Cameroon, makes clear why this particular region was important, and describes how and why thus museum (and others) were established. Mccapra (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not WP:SIGCOV as it does not specifically refer to this museum except once. If there was a Museums in Cameroon article, then yes. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's sourced, there's no reason to doubt that anything the article says is true, and I can't think of any way in which removing this article will improve the lives of our readers or improve the way information is spread around the world (which is fundamentally what an encyclopaedia is about). This looks like a pointless deletion for deletion's sake. Elemimele (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable articles. Using your reasoning, no articles would ever be deleted. LibStar (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the sources already mentioned, there is an UCLA PhD thesis by Erica Perlmutter Jones on The Multiple Lives of Objects: Museum, Memory, and Modernity in the Cameroon Grassfields which discusses the Baham and the Babungo Museums in detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baham Museum[edit]

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

Could not find any indepth coverage in gnews, gbooks and gscholar to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’ve added four refs. There’s more. Mccapra (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst new sources are welcome, I'm not sure they meet WP:SIGCOV:

- This one [55] has a single mention of Baham in 11 pages.

No, it describes the background and context of the creation of museums in Cameroon, makes clear why this particular region was important, and describes how and why this museum (and others) were established. Mccapra (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- This one [56] is merely a book sale listing from the catalogue of the museum.

Yes it shows that the museum has a published scholarly catalogue Mccapra (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- This one [57] appears to be small 1 line mentions 3 or 4 times of the museum.

LibStar (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about four museums in Cameroon, one of which is this one. It is discussing what they have in common so literally the entire article is about it and its three sister museums. Mccapra (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources have been found by Mccapra. Yes, we can be all pernickity and complain that the sources don't discuss these museums in the depth we would expect of a Western developed source discussing a Western major regional museum, but we're doing a big disservice to museums and the spread of human knowledge if we delete without judging the institution in its regional context. There is no benefit to our reader or to Wikipedia in deleting this article, and there is hope that, in time, it will grow and contribute to an area that Wikipedia currently covers rather poorly. Elemimele (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition to the sources already mentioned, there is an UCLA PhD thesis by Erica Perlmutter Jones on The Multiple Lives of Objects: Museum, Memory, and Modernity in the Cameroon Grassfields which discusses the Baham and the Babungo Museums in detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified by Mccapra, passes the WP:GNG + WP:NEXIST. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ . Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MaXXXine[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NFF, which says "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. — Archer1234 (t·c) 00:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. &n--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)bsp;— Archer1234 (t·c) 00:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: article does not meet WP:NFF. Incubate in draft space and use AfC to ensure an adequate review is conducted prior to moving to main space. — Archer1234 (t·c) 00:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or draftify. If the first two movies were notable enough for articles then it is almost certain that this one will be too. This already has some coverage so maybe it is already eligible for an article. If not, it can be moved to a draft. The one thing we don't want to do is delete it and waste the effort that has already gone into it. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Should be draftified until we get better sourcing. Filming has barely started, that's about the extent of the coverage.

Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are now various notable sources stating that it has started filming. I have added some. Rather than deleting the article, let's add more sources. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ per WP:ATD-I. I wish that option had been exercised before coming here since it hadn't yet. Now my talk page has been tainted thanks to the over-zealous move of another editor... Oh well. I concur with the nom. the production is not notable at this point. It has been filming for two days, and the source of the only coverage is not independent since it really comes from the studio, nor significant (can be summed in two words: "filming started"). It is good as a verifiable source of info, but not to confer a notable production. -2pou (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck my !vote above. Several sources have been added, but they're pretty much just the same thing from different outlets. The latest addition at least expands on the PR license plate pic ever so slightly, but I don't know if an update to a "weak keep" is worthwhile. Either way, though, I have a do not delete stance since it can be sent back to draft for now, should consensus lean against keeping. -2pou (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are now multiple reliable sources that have stated that principal photography has commenced. I have added a number of them to the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DisneyMetalhead (talk • contribs) 02:19, April 13, 2023 (UTC)

The criteria for unreleased films that have already started principal photography is stated at WP:NFF, which says:

films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.

— Archer1234 (t·c) 03:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. May return to mainspace after it receives enough coverage and is released. Aintabli (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep - well sourced, notable. TheMovieGuy
Keep Filming has started, no point in transfering it to draft now since the sources pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 24.52.114.138 (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does it satisfy WP:NFF? — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft per the rules stated above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Filming has started and there are enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Little point in draftifying now. --wooden superman 10:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with several new sources added, including sources on the production. -WikiPete18 (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Please, the filming is still ongoing. CastJared (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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