The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prosun Azad[edit]

Prosun Azad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant work and notable award. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 15:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Starred in multiple movies as the lead actress and received decent coverage from her spat with the Directors Guild before being blacklisted. FD I created the article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NMODEL Tanbiruzzaman (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The banning controversy made her notable. Editorkamran (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:BIO1E  // Timothy :: talk  05:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: BLP Fails GNG and BIO: Appears at best to be BIO1E. Source eval:
• 1E source :: 1.  "Prosun Azad banned from productions for one year". The Daily Star. 31 October 2016. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
• Promo :: 2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Prosun Azad turns director". Prothom Alo. Archived from the original on 4 April 2016. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
• Interview :: 3. ^ "Films are largely men-centric: Prosun Azad". Dhaka Tribune. Archived from the original on 6 February 2017. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
• Mention in article about another subject, no SIGCOV :: 4. ^ ""Keno Megh Ashe" on ntv". The Daily Star. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
• Mention in article about another subject, no SIGCOV :: 5. ^ "Prosun's Ochena Hridoy". The Daily Star. 23 May 2015. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
• Mention in article about another subject, no SIGCOV :: 6. ^ "Shuvo begins filming Dhattiriki". The Daily Star. 9 January 2017. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
• Mention in article about another subject, no SIGCOV :: 7. ^ "Oshomapto Script on Maasranga". The Daily Star. 11 February 2016. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
• Mention in article about another subject, no SIGCOV :: 8. ^ "TV Industry celebrates Rabindra Jayanti". The Daily Star. 14 May 2016. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
• Mention in article about another subject, no SIGCOV :: 9. ^ "Musafir: An action-packed affair". The Daily Star. 4 May 2016. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
• Mention in article about another subject, no SIGCOV :: 10. ^ "Tele-film "Neelpori Neelanjona" on ntv". The Daily Star. 6 January 2017. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
• 1E source :: 11. ^ "Prosun Azad gets banned for a year". Dhaka Tribune. 31 October 2016. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
• 1E source :: 12. ^ "The year on Bangladeshi Television". The Daily Star. 28 December 2016. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
• 1E source :: 13. ^ "Prosun Azad banned for one year". Prothom Alo. Archived from the original on 7 February 2017. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
• Mention in article about another subject, no SIGCOV :: 14. ^ "Emon-Prosun-Sumon in Ochena Hridoy". Dhaka Tribune. 15 March 2014.

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  05:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTRESS. The sources regarding the banning largely consist of interviews which lack independence from the subject, and/or are from media known for being paid news which are inherently unreliable. The reviews of her roles as an actress only mention her among a list of actors, or in passing and are entirely superficial. In short, this is a non-notable person.4meter4 (talk) 17:16, 11 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. Salvio ^giuliano 22:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrecked (British TV series)[edit]

Wrecked (British TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to be notable, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2016.

Previous PROD in 2020 was removed with rationale "Aired on MTV (British and Irish TV channel) (national network) likely meets WP:NTV. WP:V is not a valid WP:DEL-REASON." But, nothing to address that likelihood has been added in the 3 years since." DonaldD23 talk to me 22:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, United Kingdom, and England. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - WP:NTV is an essay not a guideline. It has no relevance. And imo the notability guidelines for TV shows are far too lax with routine coverage being used to justify articles with no real value. But even that essay that states "a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage or airs on a minor secondary cable channel". I'd say it qualifies for both of those, seemingly lasting 8 episodes only and MTV UK being a minor pay tv network rather than a free to air national channel. Page has no citations or references, any discussion is going to be Routine Coverage. It's had 7 years tagged for improvement. It's not going to happen. Delete. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Due to multiple issues mentioned on the Main Page. Charsaddian (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No references in article and I'm struggling with a before to show WP:GNG. A Redirect to Dirty_Sanchez_(TV_series)#MTV Wrecked (2007) could be the way forward here - though there's no citation on the target article either. ResonantDis_tortion 10:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subject to possible future re-creation, Right now, there are zero sources. This TV show only last one short season. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 11 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zoya Tsopei[edit]

Zoya Tsopei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Created again for the umpteenth time. All of the sources are extremely promotional and clearly not independent of the subject. Does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSICIAN. Pop Queen of Latvia is not enough for WP:ANYBIO, if it is even a real award at all. I would ask everyone to read the previous AfD before commenting here if they can; there was clear consensus that there is a real push for Tsopei to have an article here, hence why all of these promotional articles keep getting posted across all of these different sites. A lot of the articles duplicate each other too; BCI 24 News is basically the same as Fun Views Online (Wordpress blog). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Fashion, Greece, Latvia, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - see also Draft:Zoya Tsopei and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Žoya Tsopei. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G4 and salt. Mccapra (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete + salt per nom. (Unless WP:Library proves otherwise.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with this assessment by the nominator. 66.207.184.34 (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete + salt. This person is not notable and will likely never be notable on English wikipedia. The continual recreation of this article suggests an astroturfed effort, which should be countered with SALT. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt - Everyone in all previous deletion discussions is correct and this is clearly part of a concerted promotional campaign. Pre-emptively salt all imaginable variations of her name and do whatever is necessary to prevent more puppets from popping up. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree that we need to WP:SALT here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete + Salt - This is clearly an advertisement, and whoever is remaking this is clearly doing so from a promotional angle. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , Promotional, as explained above. Alex-h (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on clear consensus and stop it permanently. This is poorly written, and has zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 11 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. Salvio ^giuliano 22:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stories in the Room: Michael Jackson's Thriller Album Podcast[edit]

Stories in the Room: Michael Jackson's Thriller Album Podcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOPAGE, does not meet notability criteria for a Wikipedia article. This podcast has had only passing coverage in reliable secondary sources (stuff like "Check out this clip from this podcast"). Almost everything cited as a source currently is unreliable (such as IMDB or fan pages) or a primary source (the podcast itself). It also misrepresents the sources it cites — eg, it claims the podcast has had positive reviews, then cites a MusicRadar article that merely mentions that the podcast exists without offering any critical appraisal. Popcornfud (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG. Sources/BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  01:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article appears to be an attempted promotion for a new podcast series that just got started. Unfortunately the series has not been noticed by any reliable media, at least not yet. Many of the sources in the article are actually about the Thriller album, and not this podcast that merely talks about the album. For now it is WP:TOOSOON, at least. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:27, 11 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Uranium Hearing[edit]

World Uranium Hearing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, a web search shows no mentions other than at advocacy organizations, no news stories about this that I could find. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Austria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because of citations for the hearing's proceedings these https://www.google.com/books/edition/Nuclear_Non_Proliferation_in_Internation/XfosBAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22World+Uranium+Hearing%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA204&printsec=frontcover https://books.google.com/books?id=rL34DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA290&dq=%22World+Uranium+Hearing%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio-pnh2JH-AhWHk4kEHZmQCGMQ6AF6BAgIEAI

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The news is not the place to look for reliable secondary sources. I have cited a couple of academic books in the article, and there are plenty of papers available that give coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources added to the article by @Phil Bridger:. I think these show notability, hopefully someone will add a couple of the papers mentioned above to the article to remove any lingering doubt.  // Timothy :: talk  09:57, 11 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 headcount was 7–4 in favour of keeping and with the debate largely consisting of assertions for and against coverage being routine, there isn't anything else to go on. – Joe (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Dewitte[edit]

Jeremy Dewitte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is one of those "point-and-laugh" small-time criminal articles that represent the very worst of what's possible on Wikipedia, serving only to attract BLP violations while presenting no encyclopedic benefit. On some occasions, we are forced to maintain such articles because they pass GNG, but that is not the case here. All of the coverage is routine local news articles, each consisting of "Man gets arrested/convicted" and then a summary of past routine coverage, with the sole exception of [1], which is mostly an interview and not stated in the source's own voice.

Every city in America has a number of career criminals who gain some modicum of local interest such that they're written up whenever they're arrested. This is particularly true in Florida where, famously, the media are notified of all arrests upon booking. That kind of routine local coverage is not what "significant coverage" refers to; it's the very reason we put "significant" there. An encyclopedia has better things to do than regurgitate tabloids and crime blotters. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Florida. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I initially agreed with your assessment when I looked at this months ago, but there is more than local coverage. In addition to what you mentioned above, there is national coverage. Not to mention he was featured on Dr. Phil.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as article creator) I don't understand/agree with the "point and laugh" comment. He's a registered sex offender, who has made English and Spanish language news many times, over many years. I think this provides encyclopaedic value, based on the hundreds of visitors who read the page daily. I think he passes WP:GNG. Obviously he's not likeable, but I think he is notable. I don't think any policies or guidelines, including WP:GNG discount local coverage, so I don't understand that part of the rationale either. I also note the national coverage above. A lot of the currently cited coverage is from WFTV which is media establishment with a 65 year history, I am not very familiar with it, but my assessment was that it was a reliable source. I urge people to search for him before !voting, because from my perspective, he seems not just notable, but very notable. CT55555(talk) 06:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue with local coverage isn't that it's local; it's that it often tends to very routine stories that don't really indicate the significance of the topic at hand. For instance, any school superintendent will receive a considerable amount of local news coverage, but they usually won't be notable, because that coverage will all be routine, without any in-depth discussion of the superintendent themself. Is there in-depth discussion of Dewitte? Are there sources that say more than "Local man arrested again"? Even the two national sources (both from marginally reliable sources for BLPs, for what it's worth) don't say much more than that. What matters is depth, not volume. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The most recent news on him is this. It's 628 words, all about him. That seems like significant coverage to me. Just to give one example. CT55555(talk) 06:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep I agree with User:CT55555 this is WP:GNG. Barely, but the repeat offences have garnered national coverage, and he's been on national media. I added a Daily Beast article to the page to bolster this. This is no superintendent getting periodic press mentions - he's notable for his repeated crimes and has gotten substantive coverage.Oblivy (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its states on the article "Posted by Osceola County Sheriff's Office". It is an affiliate news and is not indepedent coverage. It is generic and base. scope_creep^Talk 06:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misreading this - there is an embedded video and picture which were posted by the Sheriff's office. The article has a byline, "Matt Young" whose name appears on other articles on the site. Oblivy (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV - while there is national coverage, it's not significant. UtherSRG (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Significant coverage is defined as something that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" - Can you tell me how the Fox News article or being the main focus of a nationally broadcast talk show would not be considered "significant" under that criteria? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not UtherSRG, but: Dr. Phil is not a reliable source (very very far from it), so it doesn't matter whether that coverage is significant. The Fox piece is routine coverage of an arrest. There's not nearly enough there to build a proper biography out of. When you write a BLP based only on arrest/conviction reports, you get something that is not fair under either WP:N nor WP:BLP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Jeremy Dewitte is one of the worlds most famous police impersonators. Simple google search yields thousands of Dewitte focused webpages worldwide. He's been featured on multiple national programs including Fox, Dr. Phil, A&E Court Cam. There is a Facebook Group named "JEREMY DEWITTE / METRO STATE FAN CLUB" with 5,000 members and daily in-depth discussion. The story of Jeremy Dewitte is not a simple here today gone tomorrow character. While I can see how this may seem insignificant or local, it is my opinion that there is informational value to keeping with a significant international audience. 70.94.118.14 (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  None of those are reliable sources. There are YouTubers and other influencers with followings in the tens of millions whom we've ruled non-notable. All you're demonstrating is that the article is, as I said, of the "point-and-laugh" variety. We are here to document encyclopedically relevant information, not herd lolcows. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is a WP:SPA who has made few other edits to Wikipedia.

• Delete Effectively a routine police report rebadged and represented as supposedely a significant and notable individual when there is not a single thing on the article that makes him notable. Registered sex offenders are 10 a penny and its not the job of WP to hold public notice on these folk. Generic and useless. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 06:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article definitely needs rewriting, a simple Google search found enough notable independent coverage regarding him on a national, state, and regional scale. NAADAAN (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on looking at the news for this person, I was surprised to see a little Wikipedia box in the google results. further surprise and dismay to see an actual article for a trivial and non-notable individual. This is a minor internet viral sensation with a smattering of coverage in local news, social media, and some news-of-the-weird coverage in real media. this qualifies IMO as a [WP:BIO1E]], a person only known for one thing, i.e. impersonating law enforcement. ValarianB (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  One event does not mean one theme of events. He has done it many times over many years, so many events, surely? CT55555(talk) 16:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no, we don't tally up each criminal act, the man has "gone viral" for his overall string of impersonations. that is singular in terms of notability, otherwise we'd have every two-bit Instagram influencer here with an article. ValarianB (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am tallying up the events that made the news to a total of more than one. If a "two-bit Instagram influencer" made local and national news various times, for various acts, on various years, I would probably also argue that they are notable for more than one event. If someone says "one event" it is logical that I will tally up the acts, or events.

Or let me put it a different way: when the did "one event" happen? Which year? CT55555(talk) 17:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not every two-bit Instagram influencer gets featured on a national talk show or in national press based on their continuous conduct. I understand the sentiment that this guy shouldn't be notable for being a low-level criminal. However, it is his repeated conduct over the decades as a reason why the media found him worthy of notice, hence notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources above. Meets GNG and BIO, IS RS with SIGCOV addresses the subject directly and indepth and the coverage is LASTING and far from ROUTINE.  // Timothy :: talk  10:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm glad to find that I am finally in the majority here, which has not always been the consensus. I see nothing wrong with naming, blaming, and shaming notable living persons . Bearian (talk) 18:46, 11 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 per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. – Joe (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arche-writing[edit]

Arche-writing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:ESSAY, No sources cited. AtlasDuane (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Philosophy. AtlasDuane (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep - while it's unclear if this would be best as a standalone article or a part of a more general article on Derrida's philosophy, that's no justification for deletion. Other than the lack of citations, the material scans fine as potentially verifiable, appears to be encyclopedic content. - car chasm (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs sourcing work, but Google Scholar shows extensive references to this term (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Arche-writing%22), and many of them are specifically about the term, not about the creator. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As noted above, the article needs sourcing but sufficient sources clearly exist for this philosophical concept to pass GNG. WJ94 (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or at least Draftify, as the article is a complete failure of WP:NOR. The "extensive" sources above don't seem to discuss the topic in-depth. The first ten I checked just name-drop the idea briefly without giving any actual discussion of it. Perhaps there's more out there, but until then, WP:TNT. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added a source that largely seems to cover what's stated in the article, I don't think there's actually any original research here, just statements about what Derrida said. - car chasm (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this article should get a little bit more discussion and plans for how to improve it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist per Liz…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: The search term you want to use here is the original French, archi-écriture. A great deal of in-depth "actual discussion" of the concept, and these are just the English-language sources. AFD is not cleanup. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:35, 10 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Youth in Asia[edit]

Youth in Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is an obvious joke, a pun on "euthanasia" Mbarbier (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate this page should be a disambiguation page (for the two bands at the top of the page, plus Euthanasia). If somebody were to write a credible article similar to Youth in Africa, we could consider moving this to Youth in Asia (disambiguation) then. Walt Yoder (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a band with this name, I'm surprised they aren't listed under this page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Walt Yoder but I don't think disambiguate is a possible response here.Oblivy (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Asia. Skynxnex (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nomination is not serious or a clear fail of WP:BEFORE: [2]. This is a notable topic. Parent to Youth in Cambodia and sister to Youth in Africa, for example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I want it on the record that I resent the allegation that this nomination was not serious. Mbarbier (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is pretty clearly just a pun with not even a stub's worth of information. A respectable article could theoretically be created, but would need to be significantly expanded and sourced. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, It is an ambiguation, Asia consists of different people and different youths. Alex-h (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, rv Move of band article and restore to this title: I don't think this was intended to be a pun. But the subject "Youth" in Asia is far too ambiguous and broad for an article subject; Japan, Russia, Mongolia, Vietnam and Uzbekistan’s only connection is physical geography and no RS with SIGCOV cover it as a single topic. Any common information wouldn't be defined by being in Asia, but would be shared by youth inside and outside Asia. Population stats are not enough for a stand alone article. I agree with above, don't think disambiguate is a good option.  // Timothy :: talk  10:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the current article is both a bad pun and likely to be confusing to our core readers, who are probably looking for the band rather than this synthesis. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 11 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. – Joe (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suite über 6 schweizerische Volkslieder[edit]

Suite über 6 schweizerische Volkslieder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can’t find any in-depth coverage in RIS for this work in either English or German. Mccapra (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Switzerland. Mccapra (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I assume you mean RISM. Well, AFAICS they list two works by Liebermann, so their coverage is patchy. Liebermann is clearly not one of the pillars of 20th-century music, and this is a minor work, but it has been published by Universal Edition, and been performed in Europe and the US. It's mentioned in the reference book Daniels' Orchestral Music, in Grove, and in Swiss musical journals. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should have a article about this work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant “reliable independent sources’. We need in-depth coverage of the work to sustain a stand-alone article. Without this it should simply be in a list of compositions in the composer’s bio. Mccapra (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The publication by Universal is a reliable independent, secondary source (the primary source is the unedited raw manuscript, score publications are edited by an independent score editor, they are not the writing of the composer himself.) There are also two known recordings, which are also to be considered reliable, independent secondary sources.

Although the information in the article is minimal, it still provides far more information than a simple list on the composers page. As an alternative, this work could be expanded on on the composer page, but I think listing the different folksongs Liebermann incorporated in this work is already too much information for this.

Moreover, being recorded by a very notable orchestra & conductor and the recording being published by Deutsche Grammophon, makes a work notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.

It may be a short article (at this moment), but it already does contain more information than a simple listing can provide.

Additionally, I contacted RISM for inclusion of this composition. This way we help people find information more easily, instead of having to do the same research as I needed to do to find the info I needed about this work. Aszazin (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Michael. Published work by notable composer, with several recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I’m afraid “it was published” and “it has been recorded” don’t make it notable. I looked for any reviews or discussion of this work but found nothing. Mccapra (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a disconnect between our notability standards and classical music scholarship standards that I'm honestly surprised hasn't created a massive row before a la sports biographies. The views expressed by keep !voters above are consistent with scholarly views in classical music scholarship and performance; works often are considered significant purely due to the existence of arrangements and performances, even in the absence of additional materials. While we could squint and consider such materials "secondary sources" in a way, they nevertheless bring us no closer to having prose material with which we could draft an article, which is what GNG tries to establish. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Classical music and jazz have a hard time on Wikipedia because they don’t have the same publicity-crazed culture as popular music, so I’m always inclined to allow them extra leeway. But in this instance there is quite literally nothing I can find to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in WP:NOT that overrides WP:5P1 (encyclopedia) for this article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "It has been recorded" might not be enough to make it notable, but being recorded by a prominent orchestra (RIAS Berlin) conducted by a prominent conductor (Ferenc Fricsay) and released by a prominent classical label (Deutsche Grammophon), do make it notable. Moreover, within a month, it needed a repress because it was sold out, as can be seen in the referenced link to the recording.

Same with "it has been published" might not make it notable, but being published by a very prominent publisher of classical music do make it notable.

This is not to be compared with a recording by some local orchestra or ensemble, released in a small edition for a limited audience. Or a self-published score by a beginning composer trying to promote him/herself. (To give examples of scenarios where a recording or score publication do not make the work notable on its own.)

Additionally, one of the two recordings contain liner notes by Katrin Dubach about the composition, but these are only accessible for those owning the CD. We don't have access to any review, but it does exist.

Actually: a composition selected by Deutsche Grammophon & Ferenc Fricsay for recording simply can't be called "not notable". The work and amount of people required to make such a recording is just too much to ignore.

GNG does nowhere rule out prominent recordings as valid source to show something is notable, and that's a good thing.

The work is also included in „1000 Jahre Musikgeschichte In Klingenden Beispielen · Allgemeine Europäische Musikgeschichte Von 1917 Bis Zur Gegenwart” (see https://www.discogs.com/release/8456868 ) An audio document published by ETERNA (East German state label) documenting milestones in European music history from 1917 until publication of the recording in 1983.

The Deutsche Grammophon recording by Fricsay was also included in a compilation of his recorded orchestral works in 2016 (see https://www.discogs.com/release/9636940 ). And it was also issued again in a 2003 compilation bringing together the most notable old 7" issues by Deutsche Grammophon (see https://www.discogs.com/master/1009653 ), where the 2nd disc started with the 2 Liebermann compositions featured on the original 7".

There is no doubt that this composition is regarded as notable by one of the oldest record labels in existence. Who are we to question them? Aszazin (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional resources to show notability:

-swissinfo.ch (a site dedicated to people from outside Switzerland interested in Swiss culture and a branch of Swiss Broadcasting Corporation SRG SSR) included the 6 Swiss Folk Songs from the suite on their site: see https://www.swissinfo.ch/service/search/eng/45808844?query=rolf+liebermann

-They also have a review of the composition online (when searching for this composition, don't forget to include the English title "Suite on Six Folk Swiss Songs", see: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/multimedia/swiss-ethnophony---folk-meets-classic/31819768 Aszazin (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added some information from the mentioned resources to the article. (I'm very inexperienced, any suggestions for improvement are always welcome, I'm still reading through the guidelines.)

I notice that currently there aren't any criteria set specific for musical compositions. I made a remark with some propositions: WT:MUSIC Aszazin (talk) 19:10, 9 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. – Joe (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah H. Quazzo[edit]

Deborah H. Quazzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage. There are some mentions and interviews but nothing significant to meet WP:ANYBIO. CNMall41 (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I am seeing some in-depth coverage, or at least multiple references that can be combined to demonstrate notability, although not for her business career.

https://marketbrief.edweek.org/marketplace-k-12/chicago_school_board_member_faces_scrutiny_over_ed_investments/

https://marketbrief.edweek.org/marketplace-k-12/chicago_board_member_deborah_quazzo_to_step_down_at_end_of_term/

https://inthesetimes.com/article/how-to-sell-off-a-city

I am unable to access it for some reason, but there’s also apparently a Chicago Sun Times on that financial controversy.

Combined with the business career (which has even resulted in the occasional cite of publications she’s listed as an author on, per Google Scholar), I think the coverage of that controversy is probably enough to just squeak her over the edge. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep in line with what Jo7hs2 to say.Historyday01 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see two articles in an industry publication and another in a Chicago publication. Can you help me understand how this would be seen as significant coverage? Maybe I am not looking at this correctly but if we use these three references as a model, I could pretty much create a Wikipedia page on most educators. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Market Brief is not a reliable source (it's an industry publication with no editorial oversight). Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. And with a high citation count of 4, clearly doesn't not meet WP:NSCHOLAR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:29, 28 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!} 04:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 20:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is all press-releases. No coverage of this individual we can use. What's given above isn't much either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth

Source eval:

• Bloomberg database bio page :: 1. "Deborah H. Quazzo: Executive Profile & Biography - Bloomberg". www.bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2019-05-09.
• ROUTINE :: 2. ^ Jump up to:a b Editor, Sean Cavanagh Senior (2015-06-02). "Chicago Board Member Deborah Quazzo to Step Down at End of Term". Market Brief. Retrieved 2019-05-10.  ((cite web)): Empty citation (help): |last= has generic name (help)
• Mention, not SIGCOV :: 3. ^ "BrightCHAMPS establishes Global Curriculum Advisory Board". Financialexpress. Retrieved 2023-01-06.
• Our Team page, not IS RS :: 4. ^ "Our Team". GSV Ventures. Retrieved 2023-01-25.
• Mention, not SIGCOV :: 5. ^ Desk, Outlook Start-Up (2022-08-26). "BrightCHAMPS acquires English-learning platform Schola". startup.outlookindia.com/. Retrieved 2023-02-08.

The above mentioned sources are two from Marketwatch (not IS RS with SIGCOV), and a mention in an article about Rahm Emanuel.

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).

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Cerna[edit]

Ricardo Cerna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Warning: the article contains a graphic video. Please see WP:BIO1E. This article focusses entirely on Mr Cerna's death; he is not otherwise notable. WP:NEVENT requires in-depth, sustained coverage of an event to demonstrate its lasting significance. The sources currently cited are:

• 1 (Los Angeles Times): Local news reporting from around the time of the incident.
• 2 (Deseret News) and 5 (St. Petersburg Times): Brief syndicated news items.
• 3 (San Bernardino Sun) A mostly unrelated article with a short paragraph of background information about the police officer wounded by Cerna.
• 4 (Alex O'Meara) A work of fiction.

A contributor to the previous AfD suggested a few other sources: the KESQ one is another contemporaneous local news report and the Press-Enterprise ones are permanent deadlinks. I looked for additional sources and found a brief mention (2 sentences) in the book Dying in Full Detail: Mortality and Digital Documentary.[3] gnu57 01:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Guatemala and California. gnu57 01:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while it’s the sort of thing I’d have initially suspected notability, I ultimately must concur with the above review of existing sources. I did my own search and did not uncover anything that would suggest in-depth, sustained coverage or subsequent coverage of the event, and the event is his only hint at notability. The only subsequent coverage I see is on websites that cater to folks wishing to see somebody get shot, certainly no reliable sourcing. He and event fail both Wikipedia:BIO1E and Wikipedia:Notability (events). Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. gnu57 12:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable, highly unusual and well covered event. Clearly passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 21 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!} 04:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 20:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable, man takes his own life while in police custody. I don't find any discussions of the event, beyond explanation of what happened. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. BIO1E, fails LASTING, EVENT, NOTNEWS.  // Timothy :: talk  02:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No ay notable beyond a WP:BLP1E situation. Sad to say, but Suicide by cop could be a redirect for this one. If this stub were kept, it would have to be moved to Death of .... Bearian (talk) 18:54, 11 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Walker[edit]

Dean Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An IP editor has twice tried to get this article deleted via PROD. Looking into this myself, I was unable to find any decent coverage in newspapers for Dean Walker, despite the fact that he played a game in the 4th tier of English football. I also searched his name in conjunction with 'Burnley' and 'Scunthorpe' and found nothing other than one trivial mention in the Newcastle Evening Chronicle - this can be found as the second result in this search. No evidence of passing WP:SPORTBASIC from that alone. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What a travesty it is that we have ever allowed articles like this. Completely non-notable. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He has made only 1 appearance. Not notable. Charsaddian (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. ResonantDis_tortion 11:16, 11 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Fazel Bratyan[edit]

Mohammad Fazel Bratyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

His cap for Afghanistan would be enough for a PROD to be removed but not enough for actual notability. We know almost nothing about this person other than their name and the fact that they have one cap. Searches of "Mohammad Fazel Bratyan" and "محمدفاضل براتیان" did not yield anything that would pass WP:SPORTBASIC standards. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. A single appearance in a soccer game is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No information is provided in this very short article. Not notable. Charsaddian (talk) 04:46, 5 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. Salvio ^giuliano 22:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Harding[edit]

Nicola Harding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Played in the semi-pro era, when coverage was, unfortunately, not what it is today. I can't see any evidence of passing WP:SPORTBASIC in newspaper searches or internet searches. She is mentioned as a goalscorer in These Football Times, has a trivial mention in Liverpool Echo and another in the same newspaper. The four sources already in the article are also inadequate for establishing notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:03, 4 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. Salvio ^giuliano 22:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Sheen[edit]

Danielle Sheen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Can't find any decent coverage in a WP:BEFORE search. The references in the article appear to be the best available. Two of the Liverpool Echo sources are obviously trivial mentions and Blackburn Rovers is not an independent source per WP:SPORTBASIC (team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject), being a website for her former employer. Lastly, Danielle clinches it and Sparkling Sheen both fail WP:YOUNGATH per the guidance on local coverage in clause 2; The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability. A match summary for a local under-16 fixture clearly violates the criteria, so cannot be used to support notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:03, 4 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Twohig[edit]

Nicola Twohig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage found when searching "Nicola Twohig", "Nikki Twohig" or "Nicky Twohig". "Nicky Twohig" gets the best results but all, without exceptions, are just trivial mentions. WP:SPORTBASIC requires significant in-depth coverage from multiple independent WP:RS. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Ireland, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.rovers.co.uk/page/LadiesProfiles/0,,10303~1155237,00.html	Her employer		? Cannot be retrieved but clearly would not have been SIGCOV	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20071114163853/http://www.clitheroeadvertiser.co.uk/rovers/Lakeland-runs-rule-over-new.3412764.jp			One brief quote	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20100902062742/http://www.rovers.co.uk/page/LadiesNews/0,,10303~2132840,00.html	Her employer		Basic match report coverage	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20120916231018/http://www.rovers.co.uk/page/LadiesNews/0,,10303~2283369,00.html	Her employer		? Not retrievable but seems unlikely to have been SIGCOV. The title implies that it's a match report.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20090115102420/http://www.munsterspride.com/defaultarticle.php?cArticlePath=150_166			Two trivial mentions in the texts and mentioned in the squad list	✘ No
https://www.proquest.com/docview/426807095/1526176A2E4E41A2PQ/1?accountid=196403			Trivial mention	✘ No
https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/1969505.blackburn-rovers-ladies-3-doncaster-belles-2/			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/19079006			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/11823325.blackburn-rovers-ladies-lancashire-fa-womens-challenge-trophy-final/			Mentioned once	✘ 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)).

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Spleodrach (talk) 10:37, 8 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of fastest-selling products[edit]

List of fastest-selling products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This list is a coatrack for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Unlike the family of "highest-grossing" lists, where the superlative is a concrete measure, speed is by definition a relative measure. There is no such thing as an objective speed. This definition is cruelly tortured in this list, which includes sales "speeds" at a variety of unconstrained time points/time intervals and compares them across a variety of unconstrained sales domains (e.g. comparing sales of an album across markets in countries with wildly different populations). There is no assurance that any of the items in this list are actually the fastest-selling anything, since purported record holders are listed alongside (purported) previous record holders with alternate time scales, and there is no reliable third party tracking authority to confirm that an unlisted entry is the true record holder.

The video games section is its own SYNTH horrorshow. It does the classic OR trick of multiplying sales with MSRP to arrive at "gross revenue" and then further subdivides speed by a dozen different time scales into a nightmare table that is legitimately impossible to glean any meaning out of.

Some of the domain specific lists (e.g. Lists of fastest-selling albums) have more concrete and well-defined criteria. This one does not. If there's the heart of a wikipedia-acceptable list in here, I'm not seeing it. This is a WP:TNT situation at the very least (and replace with domain-specific lists) and I don't see a domain-general version of this list ever being appropriate. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-nom addition: Ah, it appears that this list has been nominated twice before, but those AFDs were not linked on the talk page. The 2nd nom was a procedural close because it was nominated just hours after the first nom's close. The 1st nom was more substantive, ending in "no consensus", but highlighting many of the same problems that this list still suffers from, 10 years later, namely untenable and potentially limitless inclusion criteria and disordered apples-to-oranges comparisons which are inherent to the nature of this list. The previous result was no consensus, but by a hair, as noted in the closer's comment. I think 10 years of accumulating coatracking have not improved any of these core deficiencies. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Film, Music, Video games, Products, and Lists. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nomination. As the template at the top of the article suggests this list is the work of Maestro2016 who was known for misusing sources. I actually thought about cleanup this page in the future but after looking at the page further this is too much of a headache even for me. Timur9008 (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split Lists of fastest-selling albums makes sense since it shows the albums that sold the most copies their first week of release. List of fastest-grossing films has specific criteria as well. This article has a lot of things that shouldn't be there. In the vehicle section, the first entry makes sense. Bestselling car of all times by pre-order or first week, that'd be something to list. The other three entries there don't show the actual sales figures or time period counted. The video game section could be its own article just like the one for albums is. List of video games that sold the most preorders. A game selling 30,000,000 copies from preorders is quite impressive. Listing which video games sold the most copies their first week would make sense also. List_of_fastest-selling_products#Home_media has information that should go somewhere. If not enough things to make their own article yet, this would be the place to have it. Just need to eliminate all the bad entries in the article. Dream Focus 19:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with narrowly defined sublists on this topic in fields where data is plentiful and verifiable. The music industry is perhaps one of them since it publishes detailed sales data. The video game industry is absolutely not, since sales data is often deliberately obfuscated, misrepresented, and selectively distributed, preferentially shared when it's positive. Pre-order data is very rarely shared. It's hard enough sorting through the sales data for the best-selling games list. I think trying to maintain a verifiable list on "fastest selling" games, which is just an ever so slightly different take on best-selling games (they're both about essentially the same topic), is not a good use of time and energy. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 19:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Worth noting most of this article was by Jagged 85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Maestro2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so even if it was to stay, it'd require a full WP:TNT. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, very hard to verify this information. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per excellent nominating rational from nom and TheJoebro64. Don't have anything to add to what they've said here. Nomader (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Due to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SYNTH. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no prejudice to forking into other articles if they are well-sourced. "Products" is just too unwieldy. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clear-cut trivia. Azuredivay (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete then Burn whatever remains. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A coatrack for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. RS do not define what "fastest selling" means, and "products" could only be more INDISCRIMINATE if it was changed from "products" to "things". Without meaningfully defined criteria, it is impossible to tell if this meets LISTN.  // Timothy :: talk  11:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am afraid to !vote that way, because so much work appears have been done, but it's still a mess. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 11 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doon Public School[edit]

Doon Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Utterly fails WP:GNG. Unreferenced since 2016. I tried looking in all major Indian reliable sources, newspapers, magazines, journals and found nothing. Only links found were for the iconic The Doon School, which this page and many other 'Doon' pages (like Doon International School) ride on. This is not a notable school by any measure. BiblioFreedom (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I conducted a search for references on the web and was unable to find any reliable sources to support the notability of the school. Additionally, the article appears to be written like an advertisement, lacking any references to back up its claims. Macrobreed2 (talk) 16:44, 4 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trevon Lane[edit]

Trevon Lane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A minor figure in Tupac Shakur's entourage, Lane's name gets precisely 59 Google search results and none of them are significant coverage and none of them in RS. Sourcing in the article reflects this - a minor gang member with no notability in his own right. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Crime, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: BLP Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in the article do not show N. BEFORE didn't show anything that is IS RS with SIGCOV showing N. N is NOTINHERITED.

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  18:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most articles are passing mentions. Kakara69 (talk) 17:02, 8 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. Canley (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ògbójú Ọdẹ nínú Igbó Irúnmọlẹ̀[edit]

Ògbójú Ọdẹ nínú Igbó Irúnmọlẹ̀ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 14:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Nigeria. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 14:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Can the nominator explain in more detail how this classic novel fails GNG? It was translated into English by Wole Soyinka! That alone probably satisfies WP:NBOOK#3. Anyway, here are three reliable sources to demonstrate notability: Journal of the African Literature Association (2014), "The Self and the Other in Fagunwa's Forest of a Thousand Daemons" (2017), and International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature (2012). pburka (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe them sources should be incorporated into the article (at the very least into external links) because when I did a google search I couldn't find anything that showed evidence of WP:SIGCOV. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 00:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This was one of the first novels ever published in the Yorùbá language and was hugely influential because of that. It has never gone of out print. The lack of sources on Google speaks to how little international interest and investment there can be in literature written in indigenous African languages - even classics like this. You'll probably find more sources if you google the title of Soyinka's translation but it's more accurate to keep the wikipedia page name as the original Yorùbá title. Also if you look at the wiki page for the author Fágúnwà, you'll get a sense of his importance. Clarenicheall (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's also helpful to search for the title without diacritics. Please be diligent about your research before nominating articles for deletion in subject areas with which you're unfamiliar. Our goal should be to improve the encyclopedia. pburka (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources found by Pburka. Mccapra (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For the nom, a tip: if a book has been translated, that alone suggests it's likely to be notable and that you may want to look deeper than a google search if nothing comes up for you. Even if it isn't translated by someone who won the Nobel Prize for literature. -- asilvering (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - just in case there is any questions. First books published in a major language almost by definition notable. Apart from the Nobel prize Elinruby (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Baca[edit]

Lawrence Baca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject clearly fails WP:GNG, sourcing in article inadequate, WP:BEFORE shows nothing out there. Sent to draft and returned to mainspace, the only loss to Wikipedia in this deletion is saying goodbye to the timeless prose, "Lawrence Baca would get his first camera after he graduated from Harvard and would use that camera to take photos of landscapes all across the United States. One of the pictures he took were in the State of Utah, sites that had huge red figures or sites that had many holes." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It sounds like this person could be notable if we dig around and find some sources. Also lets try to be mindful that this article was written as part of the Student Program and give this fella some grace. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Went though and added much better sources, the subject of the article is one of the first Native American civil rights lawyers and appears to be notable. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 10:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: based on new sources I would say it is notable.Pershkoviski (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to meet WP:GNG (with credit to Dr vulpes). -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY and my own standards for notable lawyers. Specifically, "trying a notable case ... [and] being recognized as an expert in a specialized area of law." Bearian (talk) 19:06, 11 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 21:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fadi Nahas[edit]

Fadi Nahas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable businessman, fails to meet WP:NBASIC, no in-depth presence in independent reliable sources, all are unreliable and non-independent, irrelevant and 404 error sources, few brief mention in reliable source due to honorary council general. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Lebanon. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Member of 10 boards all with links for verification and has 5 awards also each documented. 20 references for the article among them economist.com , consulate-info.com, lorientlejour.com, lecommercedulevant.com, washingtonlife.com. This person also ran for parliement in 2022 in Lebanon. Inkinmotion (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks notability, awards are not significant as per WP:ANYBIO, Cited economist pages only provide passing reference to him so fails WP:BASIC which requires "significant coverage in multiple published sources" MetricMaster (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP and WP:POLOUTCOMES. I don't see how he's done anything notable. I don't see any notable awards. Political candidates are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 11 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Education Ecosystem[edit]

Education Ecosystem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable company, sourced with spammy sources. Routine coverage, fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. References are non-significant coverage and so fails GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company is known among coders. I believe we can save the page by improving it. The main issue is that the company is known by multiple names: Education Ecosystem, LiveEdu, Livecoding.tv. There are articles available about it in other languages too. I recently added an article by Wired about it - https://www.wired.com/2015/08/the-strange-appeal-of-watching-coders-code/. Shakycatto (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article fails WP:NCORP also referenced UK Company Listing shows 1 employee and total assets of 250K as of Feb 2023 which further supports not WP:NCORP MetricMaster (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding search for Livecoding.tv: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. AllyD (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and United Kingdom. AllyD (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Originally a WP:SPA article on a start-up. The article has subsequently been curated as the company has renamed and changed its proposition (coin offering, etc.) and recently shorn of its most obviously PR-based content. For the purposes of this AfD, it may be worth considering earlier versions and their references here [4] (though it does look predominantly announcement-based coverage)? AllyD (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 4 April 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 the article doesn't *clearly* contain independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. Even the Wired article mentioned above has no "independent content" which is in-depth and about the company, either commenting on users of the website (not the topic of this article) or relying on comments from the founders. I'm unable to locate a single reference that meets our criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:06, 8 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 21:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Texephyr[edit]

Texephyr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Zero WP:RS even after searching. Arguably WP:A7 but I believe the article does indicate it's importance? It just doesn't have any references to prove it. Soni (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and India. Soni (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am now aware of the 1st AFD Nomination. Of the sources linked there, 1 is dead, 2 are not WP:RS and this one is reliable (though it might fall under WP:PRSOURCE, I am not sure yet). 1 RS is still not enough, though admittedly I did not find this one on my last set of searches Soni (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero indications of notability. Totally fails GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Literally Zero independent reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 11 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 21:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pragyan editions[edit]

List of Pragyan editions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The base article Pragyan is notable. The list is not (Or rather, the list does not meet WP:LISTPURP sufficiently. Everything in this list could be summarised in the base article, and in fact, already has been done partially. Soni (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Lists, and India. Soni (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. This wall of text is a huge mess. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 11 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 21:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worldfest India[edit]

Worldfest India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

One WP:RS and everything else is blogs, press releases, or similar. Arguably meets WP:G11 though that can be fixed if article is kept.

Does not meet WP:GNG at the moment based on my googling for resources. Soni (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Events, and India. Soni (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Currently, there are zero reelable sources on the page. Just to be sure I did a search of books and ephemera, and found a few potential sources, but they look like passing mentions. Ping me if you find a few good sources. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 11 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 12:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bitag characters[edit]

List of Bitag characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Rationale: BLAR was contested by Materialscientist. Currently the list fails WP:NLIST, WP:FANCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is entirely unsourced for the over 14 years. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These are real people in a consumer advocacy/law enforcement program. They aren't characters! The caught criminals are in a very real prison and aren't taking off their makeup and going back home at the end of the day. What in the bleepity bleep is going on with this article that the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency is described as a 'character' in a real investigative television series?! Nuke this article from orbit, I'm embarassed I even have to vote on this at all to be removed. Nate • (chatter) 16:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also I don't think Materialscientist was contesting the nomination, just reverting the uncommented redirection per BLAR for clarity. Nate • (chatter) 20:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bitag, due to the fact, the rogue galllery of criminals have been mentioned in this program are been fall under WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BIO1E, when in fact the rogue gallery section including Baywalk Triads, Road Eye Towing Services and Maranaw Bus Posse, are real-life criminals and corrupt organizations, which the endtag in the segment says "The suspects have been saw are remained INNOCENT unless they have proven guilty in courts." The factions sections are the PDEA and PNP are law enforcement agencies while the Philippine Coast Guard is an agency attached by Philippine Transportation Department, to monitor maritime in the Philippines. So redirect to the TV program, which is per WP:ATD. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:F5BA:731B:AECA:EC01 (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Doesn't matter. They're real people. They're not fictional characters. This is 100% unsourced natter and not only incorrectly named, but if there's a presumption of innocence for anyone arrested on this and they were exonerated, then this information describing them shouldn't be here at all and is an incredible violation of our WP:BLP policies. Nate • (chatter) 18:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete rather than redirect as this is a major case of BLP violations, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This was tagged for speedy deletion. I do not think it is a case where immediate WP:CSD#G10 deletion and overruling this AFD is necessary, so I have reverted the tag. However, I agree the page should be deleted (long time unsourced, possible BLP issues). —Kusma (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For the non-Filipinos out there: this article is just like an indiscriminate listing of every regular audience member in every Jerry Springer or Maury season. I don't think none of the persons named in this listicle would even be considered notable to the general Filipino public. --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's what I kind of got the gist of, that the show calls these 'characters' more than actual people like trash talk shows in the US and South American/Mexican variety shows (where the regular cast exaggerates certain characteristics). Still a really bad description of real people though on the show's part. Nate • (chatter) 15:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete & Salt: As per nom. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Horrible dehumanizing article. These are real people not some Pokemons or Batman villains. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not redirect, major BLP violations. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:58, 8 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 Amritpal Singh. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amritpal Singh manhunt[edit]

Amritpal Singh manhunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Amritpal Singh. The person only derives any notability because of this manhunt. Hence, this cannot be counted as a WP:SPINOFF. Note that this article itself has less details than the Crackdown section on Amritpal Singh article. This needs to go. >>> Extorc.talk 09:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge to Amritpal Singh as the primary subject page already exists. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Amritpal Singh#Crackdown by authorities, most of the information in this article exists in that section and a separate article is not needed, however it should be redirected as a valid search term. ColinBear (talk - contribs) 12:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While it may appear to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the Amritpal Singh article, it provides valuable information about a specific event that occurred in the subject's life. Deleting the article would be a disservice to readers who are interested in learning about this particular incident. Furthermore, the article contains information that is not present in the Crackdown section of the Amritpal Singh article, which suggests that it is not entirely redundant, and is well-sourced, via reliable news articles.Ainty Painty (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Amritpal Singh derives 99% of his notability because of this crackdown as demonstrated by google trends. Having a page which is smaller than the subsection of such a person's page is redundant. Entirely redundant. >>> Extorc.talk 17:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the article easily passes both WP:GNG and WP:NEVENTS as the topic has received a DIVERSE INDEPTH CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Closing admin is requested to keep in mind that this is WP:NOTVOTE and disregard any groundless comments made.
• "Manhunt for fugitive Sikh separatist puts India's Punjab on edge". Financial Times. 4 April 2023.
• "India Turned a Manhunt Into Mass Repression". Time. 29 March 2023.
• "India can't find a Sikh separatist leader, but its manhunt has the world's attention". NBC News. 28 March 2023. - Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The topic is not notable on its own. It is not exceptional to see media providing coverage to a "manhunt". Capitals00 (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a significant event happening in Indian Punjab in recent times and deserves to have a standalone article. Muneebll (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This a pointless fork of Amritpal_Singh#Crackdown_by_authorities. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Amritpal Singh. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 11 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) 01:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Durham University History Society[edit]

Durham University History Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A contested prod, and a lot of work was put into the article afterwards, unfortunately, there is still not a single in-depth reference from an independent, reliable, secondary source. And searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Below is a version of my initial response once I was notified of this issue and thus also my reasoning for the maintenance of this site: I understand your first issue with the lack of secondary sources for the society. I have now added extra sources not affiliated to the History Society, including secondary sources, which together I hope resolve the issue – sources ranging from publications like Past & Present to the Durham University Journal to Harvard University’s Website to The Times and to other individual books and articles. The second issue regarding notability I must say I am more surprised about. The society has a near century-long history in which it has hosted some of the most prestigious historians from across the United Kingdom (those listed on the site being just a few) and represented the history student body of one of the top 3 history departments in the country (a position it has held pretty steadily since records began). Its importance has been recognised by major international firms with sponsors ranging from global accounting titan Ernst & Young (EY) to some of the largest UK-based law firms in the world, such as magic circle member Clifford Chance and others such as Simmons & Simmons, as well as one of the largest publishing houses in the world, Macmillan Publishing. The society’s publication (Critical Historical Studies) has similarly been publicised by some of the most prestigious universities, not least Durham (6th ranked in UK, 3rd for History), including Kings College London and Harvard University (https://history.fas.harvard.edu/call-papers-other-universities). Moreover, its notability is at a comparable, if not greater, degree than the societies listed at the bottom of the page, which all have Wikipedia pages. To demonstrate my point, I will go through them. Trinity Mathematical Society, though established by a notable mathematician, has otherwise only a list of prestigious speakers to vouch for it (and only one reference), a list that Durham University History Society (DUHS from now on) more than matches. Oxford University Democratic Socialist Club has but one reference and no clear evidence for its notability, and yet has only been flagged for the reliability of its sources. University College Players is a college-level club, hardly with a notability comparable to DUHS. Hysteron Proteron Club at Balliol College Oxford is similarly a college-level club with its notability resting on one mention in the house of commons, reflecting the pervasion of Oxbridge graduates in the British house of commons and the ‘Oxbridge boys club’ nature of that institution, particularly 20 years ago (see for example: https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/8279, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/apr/19/oxford-union-created-ruling-political-class-boris-johnson-michael-gove-theresa-may-rees-mogg, https://www.ft.com/content/85fc694c-9222-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2), rather than reflecting any notability. Oxford Socratic Club, a club that lasted less than a decade, also has a vast page and whose notability, as far as I can tell, is based on notable speakers and allegedly ‘Famous debates’ (that conspicuously lack a single citation) – once again a list of speakers that is comparable and notably less important to modern academic study than that of DUHS. Oxford University Wine Circle too has a page, yet its only notability stems from the extravagant wines the society's members could afford to purchase as well as a sponsorship from Pol Roger – a sponsorship arguably less prestigious than those DUHS have had. The Oxford University Archaeology Society is another student society whose history is similarly long to DUHS (though more chequered). Finally, the Durham University Christian Union has a lengthy page and yet one with no references and limited content of notability, including mentions of a ‘weekend House Party’! I hope this has suitably outlined my reasoning for the society’s Wikipedia page, and demonstrated that many comparably, if not less, notable societies have similar pages. --------------------------Links to talked about wikipedia pages: Trinity Mathematical Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Mathematical_Society Oxford University Democratic Socialist Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Democratic_Socialist_ClubUniversity College Players https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_College_Players Hysteron Proteron Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteron_Proteron_Club Socratic Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_Club Oxford University Wine Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Wine_Circle The Oxford Archaeological Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Archaeological_Society Durham University Christian Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_Inter-Collegiate_Christian_UnionHistorian2003 (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Above is my reasoning for the maintenance of the page. However, if members still do not believe it meets the criteria for a full page I might suggest that part of it is included in the page 'List of social activities at Durham University', just like, for example, the 'Durham Revue'. (If it is of any relevance I think lists are subject to different notability guidelines, although I am not sure)Historian2003 (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Prob delete - it seems highly unlikely that a student society would meet the relevant notability criteria. As far as I am concerned, notability would only be considered to have been unquestionably met if there was significant third-party media about. It is possible that someone has published a book about the history of the society, but I haven't been able to find it and it isn't currently on the page. Until or unless this kind of RS is found (or written), the subject is not notable and therefore the page should be deleted. JMWt (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi JMWt, thank you for your comment - all contributions to this discussion help us reach a sensible conclusion. I would just like to flag up that Wikipedia is populated by many student societies, including many much less notable than the Durham University History Society. It being a student society is therefore not, I believe, grounds enough for the deletion of the page. Below I have flagged multiple student societies with lesser or similar notability. Trinity Mathematical Society, though established by a notable mathematician, has otherwise only a list of prestigious speakers to vouch for it (and only one reference), a list that Durham University History Society (DUHS from now on) more than matches. Oxford University Democratic Socialist Club has but one reference and no clear evidence for its notability, and yet has only been flagged for the reliability of its sources. University College Players is a college-level club, hardly with a notability comparable to DUHS. Hysteron Proteron Club at Balliol College Oxford is similarly a college-level club with its notability resting on one mention in the house of commons, reflecting the pervasion of Oxbridge graduates in the British house of commons and the ‘Oxbridge boys club’ nature of that institution, particularly 20 years ago (see for example: https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/8279, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/apr/19/oxford-union-created-ruling-political-class-boris-johnson-michael-gove-theresa-may-rees-mogg,  https://www.ft.com/content/85fc694c-9222-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2), rather than reflecting any notability. Oxford Socratic Club, a club that lasted less than a decade, also has a vast page and whose notability, as far as I can tell, is based on notable speakers and allegedly ‘Famous debates’ (that conspicuously lack a single citation) – once again a list of speakers that is comparable and notably less important to modern academic study than that of DUHS. Oxford University Wine Circle too has a page, yet its only notability stems from the extravagant wines the society's members could afford to purchase as well as a sponsorship from Pol Roger – a sponsorship arguably less prestigious than those DUHS have had. The Oxford University Archaeology Society is another student society whose history is similarly long to DUHS (though more chequered). Finally, the Durham University Christian Union has a lengthy page and yet one with no references and limited content of notability, including mentions of a ‘weekend House Party’! Historian2003 (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't care about other pages that exist, the fact is that we are supposed to be determining AfD nominations based on policy. Also I will not be responding to large walls of text that say nothing very much. JMWt (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi JMWt, I fully understand your reply. Nonetheless, policy is (in every case, not just in the micro-universe of Wikipedia) determined as much by the written-down rules as it is by case studies that display how those rules are applied. My examples seek to provide such case studies.

  As a bit of a side note, please maintain a pleasant tone and be appreciative of the time people may have put into engaging with this process and your comment, regardless of whether you agree with them. Historian2003 (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I've nominated several of these other societies for deletion because of very dubious notability. JMWt (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, I think regardless of the outcome of this conversation, consistency is ultimately best for Wikipedia. More than half of the societies listed with similar or less notability than Durham University History Society remain un-nominated (for those reading this conversation). Historian2003 (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Going through a search, I have found this^[1], this^[2] and this^[3], this^[4]. Further, there are some media coverages as this^[5], and this^[6]. I guess this AfD is really complicated. I am into my verse to @Beccaynr: can enlighten more as they are known as iron hand on such educational topics.

Well that was something else. Not only were some of those references mentions, one of them wasn't. Durham University has a history department, that's not the same as a student history society. To be honest, that's the lamest !keep vote I think I've ever seen. JMWt (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't voted. Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Durham is a distinguished university, which no doubt teaches history. However, like most student societies, this one will be utterly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC) -- Hi Peterkingiron, thank you for your comment - all contributions to this discussion help us reach a sensible conclusion. I would just like to flag up that Wikipedia is populated by many student societies, including many much less notable than the Durham University History Society. It being a student society is therefore not, I believe (as perhaps you do too), grounds enough for the deletion of the page. Indeed, below I have flagged multiple student societies with lesser or similar notability - I find it very hard to agree that the society's page is 'utterly NN' if these are considered acceptable. Trinity Mathematical Society, though established by a notable mathematician, has otherwise only a list of prestigious speakers to vouch for it (and only one reference), a list that Durham University History Society (DUHS from now on) more than matches. Oxford University Democratic Socialist Club has but one reference and no clear evidence for its notability, and yet has only been flagged for the reliability of its sources. University College Players is a college-level club, hardly with a notability comparable to DUHS. Hysteron Proteron Club at Balliol College Oxford is similarly a college-level club with its notability resting on one mention in the house of commons, reflecting the pervasion of Oxbridge graduates in the British house of commons and the ‘Oxbridge boys club’ nature of that institution, particularly 20 years ago (see for example: https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/8279, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/apr/19/oxford-union-created-ruling-political-class-boris-johnson-michael-gove-theresa-may-rees-mogg, https://www.ft.com/content/85fc694c-9222-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2), rather than reflecting any notability. Oxford Socratic Club, a club that lasted less than a decade, also has a vast page and whose notability, as far as I can tell, is based on notable speakers and allegedly ‘Famous debates’ (that conspicuously lack a single citation) – once again a list of speakers that is comparable and notably less important to modern academic study than that of DUHS. Oxford University Wine Circle too has a page, yet its only notability stems from the extravagant wines the society's members could afford to purchase as well as a sponsorship from Pol Roger – a sponsorship arguably less prestigious than those DUHS have had. The Oxford University Archaeology Society is another student society whose history is similarly long to DUHS (though more chequered). Finally, the Durham University Christian Union has a lengthy page and yet one with no references and limited content of notability, including mentions of a ‘weekend House Party’! Historian2003 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Request - mainly due to the walls of text - can the keep voters please list the top 3 secondary references which indicate notability? ResonantDis_tortion 22:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The fundamental question for notability is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Of the sources presented in this AfD, the first four are passing mentions, one is not about the society, and one is not independent. Looking through the sources in the article, all are either passing mentions, primary sources, or not about the society at all. Arguments about the existence of other student societies are irrelevant, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - if significant reliable independent sourcing can't be found for those articles, then they should also be deleted. WJ94 (talk) 09:47, 11 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 12:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket at the Arafura Games[edit]

Cricket at the Arafura Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

For the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netball at the Arafura Games, non notable tournament with very little coverage. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Australia and Cricket. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Maybe redirect to Arafura Games per WP:ATD. 206.83.103.190 (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge content if anyone cares enough to do it. As per nom. Content can be moved over to main page assuming anyone cares. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 13:10, 9 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hap Palmer[edit]

Hap Palmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Possibly redirect to Baby Songs, but there is zero coverage in RS out there for this children's entertainer - and none in the article, either. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Education, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: NN Musician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy and Strong Keep Article content may not establish notability, but the artist was exceptionally popular in earlier days, Most coverage for the artist is from an era before the internet was around, so lack of readily available sources is inevitable....as WP policy states "Notability is not temporary"

Evidence of notability:

• 1. Almost a thousand listings in Worldcat with some of his individual albums being in the collections of hundreds of libraries. (we have articles on here for musicians :who don't come close to this figure)
• 2. His recordings part of the Smithsonian Folkways collection. I can't think of a much larger prestige for an artist to have their work sold by the United States' national museum.

Article obviously could use some cleanup, but it is clearly salvageable.--T1980 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Then those references need to be found. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: T1980's comment is entirely based on an WP:Argument to avoid in deletion discussions as UtherSRG alluded to. Toddst1 (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Allmusic have a biography of Palmer - I have added the reference to the article; this should count as an independent reliable source with sig cov. When I have time I will look for more.ResonantDis_tortion 07:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added more citations to reliable sources including from Smithsonian Folkways and a full page article from the LA Times. ResonantDis_tortion 08:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are numerous reviews of Palmers work in the School Library Journal over several years - which is further independent sourcing - several of these are now referenced in the article. E2A: With the LA Times article and Allmusic bio (which is reliable per WP:RSMUSIC) this article has multiple sources thus meeting WP:SINGER#1.ResonantDis_tortion 14:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Furthermore the Smithsonian Folkways label has 36 albums by Palmer. Unless I am missing something - this massively exceeds WP:SINGER#5 which requires Has released two or more albums on a major record label. ResonantDis_tortion 07:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The Smithsonian Folkways "reference" is merely a catalog entry. The LA Times article is a reliable source but GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources, not just one. Not even close on WP:NMUSICIAN. Toddst1 (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the AllMusic entry confirms the winning of at least one notable award and the LA Times article is significant content, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Created a body of work that is noted by childhood educators (one e.g. Gilbert, A. G. (2015). Creative Dance for All Ages. United Kingdom: Human Kinetics.) so passes WP:CREATIVE and won a notable award, therefore arguable pass at WP:ANYBIO criterion 1. CT55555(talk) 17:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]