< August 23 August 25 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was move to draft‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lasse Schulz[edit]

Lasse Schulz (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 football player. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. ULPS (talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is the goalkeeper of the Finland U21-team for the upcoming Euro qualifiers, and the next season he will play for Danish Superliga club. I disagree that he is non-notable. I added and will ad more references if that helps. Syvä-äksy (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2023.
And why is it straight "nomination to deletion" but not this: "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for sports and athletics. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Syvä-äksy (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't predict notability, perhaps he will become notable soon but as of now, I have not seen anything that amounts to significant coverage in reliable sources. The recreation of deleted articles happens all the time (I do it myself) and you can recreate it then. I don't notability tag when I believe the subject is almost definitely not notable. From my understanding of the sources, they are either database entries or primary sources/press releases. This was all I found in my WP:BEFORE checks as well. I don't speak Finnish and instead used Google Translate, so please forgive me if this assessment is incorrect and explain what they are. If you do find sources beyond the ones in the article that allow the subject to fulfill WP:GNG I will gladly withdraw this nomination. ULPS (talk • contribs) 17:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The former I cannot access due to a paywall but the latter is the most routine of coverage: a transfer report and from a low-quality source. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like Robby.is.on said, I cannot access the first, even assuming it is high quality and reliable the second is the opposite. You need more than one article for GNG. ULPS (talk • contribs) 14:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Guyana women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Gonsalves[edit]

Julia Gonsalves (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)

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the Guyana women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Guyana women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Zaban[edit]

Alicia Zaban (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)

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the Guyana women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Wong (choreographer)[edit]

Sunny Wong (choreographer) (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NENT and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some input on the sources presented by Cunard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sean St John[edit]

Sean St John (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:BLP of a business executive, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for businesspeople.
As always, people in business are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia just because they exist, and must be demonstrated as passing WP:GNG on the depth and quality of their sourceability, but 17 of the 19 footnotes here are not support for notability at all: seven are his own "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, seven are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person, and three are glancing namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else. That leaves just two footnotes that actually represent reliable source coverage about him, which isn't enough.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably more third-party coverage in real media and books than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither philanthropy or being indigenous exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG on the quality, depth and geographic range of the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuella adaolisa[edit]

Emmanuella adaolisa (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)

Clear case of WP:BLP1E. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 22:17, 24 August 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 Splatoon. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inkling (Splatoon)[edit]

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

Article's reception were filled with trivia articles, like listicles and Smash commentary (Best character to use). Most of the reception section content could be potentially be merged at the series article. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 21:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to series: No evidence of real coverage that can't be used
  • Additional comment: Can we agree that using Smash Bros. for character notability shouldn't count unless the character is absolutely notorious in the scene like with Meta Knight and Steve (Minecraft)? This type of commentary was also used at Villager (which was redirected) and Pichu. The Super Smash Bros. scene changes constantly, and except in instances where the character literally broke the game (see the examples I gave), I don't think we should use Smash for character reception.
NegativeMP1 20:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking from having read a bunch of articles about characters in Smash, a lot of notability derived from Smash based sources tends to focus on their role in the series. There is genuinely some commentary that can be derived from these sources at times, but it depends on how it's used in the article itself. However, I feel a lot of the time, unless it's something like the examples you listed, where it is very impactful on the game's entire sphere, they work better as supportive sources than something to build a whole article around. I wouldn't discredit it entirely, but I definitely agree that there should be some pickiness when it comes to sources. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others. I feel this has grounds to be a notable topic, but right now sources simply do not exist to individually establish the Inklings separately from Splatoon. Unopposed to this being remade in the future should sources arise. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hidenori Yoshimizu[edit]

Hidenori Yoshimizu (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 24 August 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye)[edit]

Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye) (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)

Nearly unsourced WP:MADEUP fancruft topic. I found one source that actually verbatim uses this term, but that does not an article make. Dronebogus (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly a consensus to Keep but since this is such a poorly sourced article, I'd like to see a review of the sources found by Siroxo to see if they can help establish notability. Editors saying that something is important and significant isn't valued as much as these comments reported by independent reliable sources. What seems obvious to you has to be support by secondary sources so if you are arguing to Keep this article, these have to be located, at least before I will close this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—siroχo 00:23, 26 August 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Desh Rupantor[edit]

Daily Desh Rupantor (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 newspaper fails to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 12:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if an editor can review sources added by Ontor22 and whether or not they can establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 24 August 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. Struck or not, Liz's relist comment sums up the situation: A lot of very new accounts making relatively poor arguments in favor of keeping, while established editors and those making higher quality arguments were much more on the delete side. As AfD is not a nose count, this tilts it into "Delete". Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cad Crowd[edit]

Cad Crowd (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:SPA creation, no indication of notability per WP:NCORP. Ko Eilders (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There appear to be outside sources discussing the company here, and I found some puff interviews, but I'm not finding anything definitive saying this one reaches the notability guidelines: [[18]][[19]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Let'srun (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG."Justwatchmee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'm skeptical of new accounts whose 2nd edit is to nominate an article for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Akikormin125
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/startup-of-the-week-cad-crowd Yes Independent Yes The source is a noted book by a newspaper Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/article/edmonton-journal/129375675/ Yes Edmonton Journal is independent Yes Yes it is reliable Yes Yes the article is about them ✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=ifqaDwAAQBAJ&q=%22CadCrowd%22 Yes Independent Yes The source is a major publisher & well respected Author Yes The book has fairly substantial coverage, definitely more than a mention. ✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=Zr1dEAAAQBAJ&q=%22Cad+Crowd%22+-wikipedia Yes Independent Yes The information discussed seems reliable ~ Repeatedly mentioned on P.’s 268, 270, 272 ~ Partial
https://web.archive.org/web/20200415004410/https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/04/01/technology/01reuters-health-coronavirus-invention-insight.html Yes Independent Yes The source is a news organization. Yes Fairly decent for ny times. ✔ Yes
https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/product-design/a2766-cad-crowd-10-iconic-products/ Yes Independent Yes The source is a well known online architectural publication. Could be a yellow here if you were being extremely harsh. ~ The entire article is about the company and the history of what has been showcased there. ~ Partial
https://www.engineering.com/story/the-best-crowdsourced-designs-to-fight-covid-19 Yes Independent Yes The source is one of the most notable engineering websites Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/article/calgary-herald/129375502/ Yes Independent Yes The source is a well known ~ This article is more of a mention than in-depth. ~ Partial
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)).

Akikormin125 (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response Here's a quick analysis using GNG/WP:NCORP criteria
  • Calgary Herald relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails WP:ORGIND (not "Independent", regurgitated company bumpf)
  • Edmonton Journal also relies entirely on information provided by the company and has no "Independent Content" nor any in-depth information on the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • Book on "Target Funding" is a mention with a 2 sentence profile, not in-depth, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  • Book on Product Lifecycle Management mentions that they used data from the topic company to train their machine learning algorithm and for testing and provides very rough statistics on the crowdsourcing projects listed. But has no in-depth information about the company and fails CORPDEPTH
  • Reuters article has a quote from a founder and a description of a contest. No "Independent Content" and no in-depth information, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • Rethinking the Future is not a reliable source and has a big disclaimer on their Content Policy page. The article has no attributed journalist and provides no in-depth information on the company nor "Independent Content", fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • Engineering.com article comments on entries into a content run by the topic company, fails to provide any in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • Calgary Herald article has three sentences, two of which are quotes from the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
None of those sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ResponseHere's a quick analysis of your analysis using my version of GNG/WP:NCORP criteria, the way it is supposed to be applied.
Calgary Herald relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails WP:ORGIND (not "Independent", regurgitated company bumpf) Anyone doing a weekly column on startups from their country will have a editorial review board of at least a journalist and editor that reviews submissions, researches and then contacts the principals for a brief interview which is what happened here. Any information published independently of the interview is considered valid and usable. WP:NCORP is meant to weed out simple mentions, phone book listings, small funding announcements w/ no additional information and trivial coverage. Not articles in major news publications highlighting the country’s most promising companies.
Edmonton Journal also relies entirely on information provided by the company and has no "Independent Content" nor any in-depth information on the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Same situation here, the paper is covering a labor shortage and how Cad Crowd is helping. There is significant coverage into the company, its product, and its history. There are a couple quotes but that is standard editorial process in newspapers to grab quotes while fact checking. This is the definition of good coverage and a valid article.
Book on "Target Funding" is a mention with a 2 sentence profile, not in-depth, fails WP:CORPDEPTH This entry into this book literally has a section where it says this is a short profile of the company. It is mentioned 3 times over 2 pages THAT WE CAN SEE.. You can see the entry has numerical paragraphs, we only see 1), so there is definitely more there. WP:CORP defines passages in books as counting towards notability. It is even listed at the end of the book.
Book on Product Lifecycle Management mentions that they used data from the topic company to train their machine learning algorithm and for testing and provides very rough statistics on the crowdsourcing projects listed. But has no in-depth information about the company and fails CORPDEPTH The same goes here. This company is tacking internal data from the company and training the machine. There is absolutely nothing more in-depth about the company than information from its website and customers fed into an AI program to learn from. This chapter is 6 pages long and is the definition of corp depth. They literally use Cad Crowd to train InnoCrowd so every mention of InnoCrowd can be sourced back as info on Cad Crowd. Also, Cad Crowd is often referred to as “the crowdsourcing platform” several times as well. That is at least a 10 pages just on Cad Crowd. How could you claim you read this and argue it wasn’t in-depth? It is an entire AI platform developed on the bones of Cad Crowd and how it was developed.
Reuters article has a quote from a founder and a description of a contest. No "Independent Content" and no in-depth information, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. This comment is just creating more work, my table specifically says it is not an in-depth article but again, mentions do count toward notability. This article is about several people trying to tackle problems during a pandemic in different ways.
Rethinking the Future is not a reliable source and has a big disclaimer on their Content Policy page. The article has no attributed journalist and provides no in-depth information on the company nor "Independent Content", fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. You are just creating more work again here.. If you look at the table, I only claim partial because I already took into consideration it was an online publication. I went to the disclaimer page and there is nothing there that isnt standard for any small publication. There is nothing there about paid content or anything about contributors. This not the same situation as forbes like you claim.
Engineering.com article comments on entries into a content run by the topic company, fails to provide any in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH This article is items designed on its platform to help save lives during a global pandemic. Since this is an engineering and design crowdsourcing employment platform, this again, is the very definition of corporate depth.
Calgary Herald article has three sentences, two of which are quotes from the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND Trying to attack this reference when the table says it is more of a mention in a larger articles is just projecting. Read the table, I agree it is more of a mention but still partially counts.
I count at least 4 sources that meet the parameters and 3 partials towards WP:GNG/NCORP. I should also mention that sources do not need to be in the article. This is a worldwide engineering crowdsourcing website taking jobs from all over the world. I see several sources in other languages including both newspapers and books. I don’t see the point of doing more work since I only need 2 and I have obviously provided 4. I hope some other editors will join me voting so we can debunk this misuse of WP:NCORP and look at the article’s intentions and what it really lists as trivial mentions. Thanks, you have my vote, table and reply.. I weep for those editors with less real world publishing experience who have to deal with this.
From my perspective, every argument you made on every source I provided was wildly incorrect or already addressed in the table I provided. Akikormin125 (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there is a disagreement over the quality of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep: I saw other pages related to it and also its resources. The resources used are kind of trustable and I see no enough reason to delete it. Rather there are things to be improved through editing. Eyoab (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck vote per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SharonAnama. - Indefensible (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now we have a divide between experienced editors weighing in for Deletion and newer accounts advocating Keeping the article. This should be the end of it but I'm relisting this discussion to see if there is any further support for Draftifying this article and asking for it to go through the AFC process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I know it isn't my place to tell someone who spends as many hours as you do about wikipedia but isn't 3 relistings excessive? I thought two was the max? I know I am not of any standing but as it was brought up, the nominator had no history at all.. not that mine is extensive but to resist a 3rd time for something that was barely in the conversation? Anyway, I added some references and cleaned up the article to hopefully comply with wikipedia's standards. There are more out there but given this company has 45,000 engineers and designers on its platform, I think it would more collaborative to allow other people to contribute before sourcing the entire company history to prove its notability. I think this should have been closed as a win or at least a tie.. They could always revisit AFD in 90 days. Thx for your help. Akikormin125 (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Akikormin125,
Sometimes discussions are relisted three times although it's advised to not relist more than twice. Don't feel like it isn't your place to note problems if they exist, that's the only way to get a situation to change. To be honest, I've been taking on more AFDclosures and relistings than I think I should and that is partially due to a low number of admins patrolling AFDs compared to, say, a year ago or even earlier this summer. At this point, I feel it's best to leave it to another admin to close this discussion who might not see the problems I saw. I've struck my comments. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penman and Sommerlad[edit]

Penman and Sommerlad (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)

Stub article about a newspaper column. No notable independent coverage in secondary sources. Popcornfud (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 24 August 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rossland Warriors[edit]

Rossland Warriors (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010 with no sources. Fails WP:NTEAM and WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, you have another week to provide some reliable sources as the article is currently unsourced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 24 August 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 or more precisely there is a consensus not to delete, but no consensus as between keep/merge. That discussion can be continued on the article talk page if anyone wishes. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chinnamalai[edit]

Chinnamalai (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)

Poor references on the page, but I think the main problem is that this has been written as a travel guide and WP:NOTGUIDE. At best this needs WP:TNT until someone can write it in a less gushy way. JMWt (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:40, 24 August 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. A rough balance of views on each side, and neither is so lacking in policy based arguments that I should assign a different weighting. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lititz Watch Technicum[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per failure above. Qcne (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 04:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sherbro Tuckers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sherbro Tuckers (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)

Delete for lack of notability. The family does verify, but there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. It fails basic notabilty guidelines. All coverage seems to be incidental, except for the (self published) book that Peter Tucker wrote for friends and family. The 129 page book by Peter L. Tucker, The Tuckers of Sierra Leone, 1665-1914, was published about 1997, but there is no publisher or place of publication data for it, see OCLC 43918024. It looks like a vanity press publication, no copies were available to me on interlibrary loan. The reference section of the article looks as though the editor/author mostly took the list of book citations from a Google book search of "Tucker + Sherbro" and "Caulkers + Sherbro" and dumped it in the reference section. The specific entries add very little, for example, the entry http://books.google.com/books?id=zmgYSuOAkS8C&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=sherbro+caulkers&source=web&ots=GZBht_Ev8Y&sig=jrOlgtRVvS8nSk_DqQU8c7MynI8 has no mention of the Tuckers, but has language about the Caulkers that is used by the author/editor to describe the Tuckers in the article. The entry http://books.google.com/books?id=npUMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA76&dq=sherbro+tuckers#PPA76,M1 has only this to say about the Tuckers: This is also true of the Tuckers and many others on the west coast of Africa. namely that they had English blood on their paternal side. Or this one http://books.google.com/books?id=QN62ci99H7oC&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293&dq=sherbro+tuckers&source=web&ots=OGbmgW5H6K&sig=o0Hqg0eXHI6HQ5RL-cyliu1HHhI#PPA293,M1 which only says: They, like the Tuckers and the Clevelands, were descendants of European slave dealers, and their pursuits were the same. Some don't discuss the family, but just a specific Tucker, such as http://books.google.com/books?id=C4GuwL1cgnEC&pg=PA36&dq=Sherbro+Cleveland&sig=rsRwn1MsjXJAHkXDy8x7J-J5tDg which talks about Henry Tucker, the notorious slave trader. Based upon extensive searching and review of the available sources, I am convinced that the family is not notable as a group, although the larger Sherbro group and their activities are. They have their own article. Some individual Tuckers have their own articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejnar (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 24 August 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 page's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subodh Patnaik (disambiguation)[edit]

Subodh Patnaik (disambiguation) (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:d2D unnecessary disambiguation — Karnataka talk 20:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nominator blocked as a sock, otherwise unanimous keep. (No prejudice to renomination by another user in good standing) Legoktm (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Exonian[edit]

The Exonian (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)

Lacks sigcov in reliable independent sources. IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Franklin, Marie C. (15 February 2004). "Newspaper chronicles". The Boston Globe. p. 97. Retrieved 24 August 2023.
  2. ^ Strauss, Michael (2 November 2003). "Resourceful teens give professional a lesson in speed". Palm Beach Daily News. p. 18. Retrieved 24 August 2023.
  3. ^ "The Exonian's Anniversary". The Harvard Crimson. May 1, 1928. Retrieved 24 August 2023.
  4. ^ "The Exonian Marks 75th Anniversary". The Portsmouth Herald. 20 March 1953. p. 3. Retrieved 24 August 2023.
  5. ^ Crosbie, Laurence Murray (1924). The Phillips Exeter Academy: A History. Phillips Exeter Academy. pp. 204–205.
  6. ^ Lane, Stephen (2018). No Sanctuary: Teachers and the School Reform That Brought Gay Rights to the Masses. University Press of New England. pp. 118–119. ISBN 9781512603156.
  7. ^ Heskel, Julia; Dyer, Davis (2008). After the Harkness Gift: A History of Phillips Exeter Academy Since 1930. Hanover: University Press of New England. ISBN 9780976978718.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danijela Stefanović[edit]

Danijela Stefanović (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)

Assistant professor, appears to fail the general notability guideline and the SNG for academics. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 16:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. (Google Scholar is not totally irrelevant in many cases, for it now does include citations to books—it's worth a look). In these fields one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied."
She has a sparser article in the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia, arz:دانييلا ستيفانوفيتش, probably because of her Egyptology work.
I'm just a muggle with this stuff, I leave it to someone more academically informed to interpret these results.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 19:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Terror of Mechagodzilla. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Titanosaurus (Godzilla)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Titanosaurus (Godzilla) (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 Godzilla Kaiju who only has one major film to its name. It has a few small appearances afterwards, but that's about it. A search for sources yields practically nothing, and the article is already all plot. Given its major role in Terror of Mechagodzilla, a redirect there would likely work best as an AtD. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the OP and support a redirect to the Terror of Mechagodzilla page. Historyday01 (talk) 18:47, 24 August 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. North America1000 04:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajura[edit]

Ajura (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)

We have listings of "new artists" such as this article in The Punch where our subject is presented together with other new acts as a matter of routine for music pages or simple, yet embellished, announcements about new material, such as this one in TooXclusive, this in the Nigerian Tribune, or this in NotJustTok, a website that explicitly offers advertorials at a price. Then, we get reports about upcoming award events, in which the artist is mentioned once, as a candidate, e.g. here, here, etc; or announcements about upcoming tours, such as this. Practically all sources offer promotional copy instead of reviews, e.g. "The video is a reflection of the singer’s talent, as it is colourful and creative [and] will definitely garner the single more reviews"; some go as far, or as low, as reporting that the artist "has released new publicity photos" (see here).

He's a young artist who has released one unremarkable single, marketing wise. There are millions, literally, like Ajura. At our most generous, we can wish for something better in the future. -The Gnome (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Choice Awards, since their inception, are decided through polling and, since the early 2000s, through online voting or polling research. There is no participation by fans in the City People Entertainment Awards, as far as we can tell. Putting the latter on equal footing with PCA would be a stretch. But even so, Ajura has not won a City People award; he was only nominated - in the New Act category. One weak appearance in the field of awards "should make Ajura notable"? We need more, much more than this. -The Gnome (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussions: 2023-08 Restlezz (musician) (closed as ✗ delete)
Logs: 2023-05 move to → Ajura (singer)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete‎ both pages as copyvios. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar industry of Saint Mary[edit]

Sugar industry of Saint Mary (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)

While the sugar industry of Saint Mary may well be a notable subject, this page is a very sprawling, exhaustive bit-by-bit history of some estates, and learns us very little about the actual sugar industry. WP:TNT seems better than trying to remove 90% and rewriting the remainder into a coherent, clear article. I don't think we need things like "1945: The Syndicate Estates decided to let Arthur Hallpike rent a coconut grove on the property in order to promote the growth of coconuts for pig feed.", or the series of irrelevant non-sequiturs "2004: "Our "National Fruit," the Antigua Black Pineapple, is depicted on our coat of arms. It has dark yellow meat that is very sweet and flavorful. The area known as the "Pineapple Belt" runs from Redhill to Bethesda and has volcanic soil all the way to Cades Bay. Pineapples are cultivated from suckers, which mature in 15 to 18 months and continue to bear fruit for around three years. Ten acres are currently farmed at the Government Station.[4] 2005: At Urlings, there is a lovely old manse that is still abandoned and deteriorating. In the past five years, the bell in the picture has been taken (plunderer). The Museum has access to Rev. Reid's family's diaries, which describe his time serving St. Mary's Parish in the Old Road neighborhood in 1859. Antigua's tallest peak, Bogey Peak, which was renamed Mt. Obama shortly after President Obama of the United States was elected, is 1319 feet high." Every entry has such things paraphrased from the source without much care, like "1778 — died in London. Robert Christian's son died in Antigua in 1776. It is thought that he arrived in London from Antigua in the year 1777, and by the year 1778, he was residing in Southampton-street, Strand, in the city of Westminster, where he died. His sister Margaret was married to William Gunthorpe of Antigua, and he had a brother named John who died there long before 1777." Fram (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. CROIXtalk 17:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CROIX, JMWt, and Mccapra: I have added the very similar Sugar industry of Saint George to this nomination, as it has the exact same issues. Fram (talk) 07:59, 25 August 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. WP:SNOW, clear consensus to delete except among all the now-blocked socks, including the creator of the article. Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Arega Bekele[edit]

Samson Arega Bekele (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 does not meet criteria of WP:GNG, or WP:NBIO. He is an executive at an airline (regional director), but not the president/CEO nor vice-president. Article is written in a highly promotional tone and relies on unreliable sources such as press releases and this, which is basically written by the subject or his team rather than a professional journalist. Attempts to remove promotional content were reverted by the article's author. ... discospinster talk 16:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


"He is a regional director and not the President/CEO" - this shows where the mistake on your path is coming from. Perhaps, you may need to research on the role of a regional director in an airline and the enormity of responsibilities they carry. That would help you in taking better decisions. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be deleted and rewritten in a completely different tone so that the common people who are not experts in business and aviation can understand it.HarukaAmaranth (話) 18:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it is wrong to make assumptions. What is non-existent and what is a script ? You are not sure of either but yet you are making a case. Is it not proper to identify what you think is non-existent? If you can't identify, why make assumptions ? Or are we all making assumptions now ? This is so unfair Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it was written in English. What language do the common people who are not experts in business and aviation understand? This is another disappointing reason.  Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be deleted and rewritten. My Dad was a regional director for Qatar airways. I can tell that it is a powerful position. Thinking a regional director cannot achieve all these is in my view wrong. However, the article needs to be deleted and rewritten to erase alot of unnecessary adulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmirex (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the adulations is unnecessary? Like I said, I will prefer a counter claim. Instead of making assumptions, If you find out that any of the claim is false or non-existent, why not call it out ? Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have asked if anyone has found any statement there that is not true ? If no one can dispute any claims in this article, I think it will be unfair to delete it. The University of Mississippi, the Canadian Chambers of Commerce and the offices of notable individuals mentioned in the article can all be contacted to verify the veracity of these claims. If they are true, why can't the truth stand ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb Onyeabor (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's not how verification works on en.wiki. We don't generally contact the offices of notable individuals to verify that information on a page is correct - it is usually the job of whoever writes the claim to show the veracity with reference to reliable sources. JMWt (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References to those sources were added. References to the Georgia State award and the honorary degree award and others were added to the article. I did that already. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i added references like this:
https://www.abnewswire.com/pressreleases/ethiopian-airlines-regional-director-honored-by-the-state-of-georgia-and-trinity-international-university-of-ambassadors-corp_662882.html Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. Press releases are not references that verify big claims of important awards. JMWt (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are media houses that reported the event and distributed the information. I have also provided a link that confirmed where the Canadian Chamber affirmed their awareness of the award. Is it until I provide a CNN or any extreme western media source before you can validate that an African man received an award in Georgia? That will be hypocritical and unfair. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of Wiki's guidelines:
"Non-independent sources (like company websites or press releases) can be used to verify facts only"
Perhaps you will need to familiarize with the guidelines and stop this hypocrisy. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not only whether the claims are true, but does it make the subject notable by Wikipedia's criteria? Being named an Honorary Citizen of the State of Georgia is not exactly a Nobel Prize. The only official website I could find about it describes it as a ceremonial document that anyone can request. I would not say it is "well-known and significant" as described in WP:ANYBIO. ... discospinster talk 20:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Wow ! It is very embarrassing to say that being awarded a honorary citizenship is not a significant and well known honor. Are we seriously going through this now? You see why I said if we had done our research , most of these things we are saying would have been avoided. At this point, I am completely convinced that this is just a gang up. I would advise that you do some more research. Perhaps the next place you may go to tell them that being awarded a honorary citizen is not an important award, you may not withstand what you would have done to how people think of you. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe you should try requesting one to find out if it is given to every tom, dick and harry. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From being too praiseworthy to issue of verification and now issue of whether the praises are significant enough. You keep shifting the goal posts. This is unfair. And what is unfair is not right. You know this. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is very fair, and it has been the criteria for Wikipedia articles since the beginning. Otherwise anyone could have an article written about them (or write it themselves), since everyone has done something praiseworthy and probably has some kind of award given to them that not every Tom, Dick, and Harry has. ... discospinster talk 21:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone gets a honorary citizenship from a state especially if you are from another country unless you have done something very notable. Not everyone gets inducted into the Phi Kappa Phi (You may want to check that too). Not everyone gets a Presidential Lifetime achievement award and certainly not everyone gets a business person of the year award. That's not all, not everyone gets invited to deliver a speech at Harvard business school. I am pretty sure you and I cannot get anywhere near the stage at the University of Mississippi not to talk of delivering a lecture to graduating students. Not everyone is invited to deliver such high level speech and not everyone gets awarded and received their award from the a member of Congress. And definitely not everyone can serve as the regional director of Ethiopian Airlines in the Americas. For context, the Ethiopian airlines is the largest airlines in the 54 countries of Africa. It is a big company, bigger than many in your country or continent. To serve as a regional director there is not for everyone. Not everyone oversees a $600 million operations. How many company directors handle that much ? A person who does and has received all the above is not everyone. In line with Wikipedia standards, to maintain neutrality, I wouldn't want to find a way to get in touch with the owner of this profile to supply me his correspondences so that you will also know that not everyone gets correspondences frequently from world leaders. Lastly, My dear friend, I would be much more disappointed if I realize that you are doing this out of envy. Come on ! Is it not clear already ? Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Wikipedia's guidelines so well if not I would have had a profile. And for the record, this article was not written by the said person who it was written for and neither is he aware of all this attempt to erase his records. Social media is not a credible source for Wikipedia otherwise a visit to his LinkedIn profile and the recommendations from global business and political leaders there will tell you that this Wikipedia article is just a tiny representation of the said person. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and he may not be notable to you. I understand you might want to segregate and have no regards for achievers among people of color but let me make this clear to you friend, a profile like this is an inspiration to over 1 billion people in my continent. Not to the talk of the ones in the diaspora and a couple of other young people (white or not) who have dreams of being successful business executives. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Caleb Onyeabor, so far, none of these experienced editors participating in this discussion agree with your understanding of what is required to demonstrate notability on this project. You might consider requesting that this article be moved to Draft space because all signs are that it will be deleted despite all of your arguments to other editors. AFDs are decided by policy and consensus and if this AFD was closed today, the consensus would be to Delete and you don't seem to be listening to the judgment of editors who've been active on Wikipedia for many years. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of them have provided substantial reasons to or substantiated any of their reasons. They kept shifting the goal post. None of them have countered any of the facts. Just mere assumptions and hypocritical stances and even laughable ones because I read one of them talk about how a presidential lifetime achievement award and a conferment of honorary citizenship award to a foreign person is not significant. They have successfully made a mess of the "Years" they have been active here. Afterall, in almost all fields, not everyone who has spent tens of years in a role really know what they are doing. This is another example. If they want to delete it, it is mostly because the admin who nominated this article for deletion does not want to get himself to accept that black people - young black people - can achieve great things. Other factors includes: a touch of envy and then ignorance too. If this was for a white person, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Caleb Onyeabor, please strike your comments. What you said is a personal attack and can result in a loss of editing privileges. It also isn't accurate, plenty of articles on people of all nationalities, races and gender face deletion discussions. This is simply a discussion about whether the sources in the article support claims of notability and have nothing to do with the race of the article subject. Your frequent commennts here and reaction to this deletion discussion make me wonder if you have some connection to the article subject that could be considered a conflict-of-interest. If so, you should declare this on your User page and stop editing this article. And again, I encourage you to request this article be draftified because otherwise it is headed towards deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can dratify the article. Thank You. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You saw how they moved from notability to verification to being too praise worthy to whether the awards are significant casting aspersions on the image of the state of Georgia and then they accused me of being related to Mr. Bekele and then they accused Mr. Bekele of being related to the Ambassador of Ethiopia and then one of them even claimed that the awards are on request by a local consulate when a simple fact check would have shown him that Ethiopia has no local consulate in Atlanta. It's hard to see all these and not think what I think. But it is fine. Thank you for your contributions. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if you had read the external link you shared, you would have seen this:
"Honorary Citizenship – Foreign Dignitaries, prominent individuals, entertainers, or artists
Appreciation – Outstanding contributions to the City and citizens of Atlanta (including monetary, in-kind donations, cultural contributions or volunteer efforts)
Heroism"
How can you read this and still claim someone who received a honorary citizenship is not notable enough ? from the same link you shared, it showed that people who receive honorary citizenships are foreign dignitaries, PROMINENT individuals, entertainers and artists. How is any of these not prominent ? May I also point you to other links where Presidents of countries received same honor? If it is trivial, will it be given to Presidents ? You just shot yourself on the foot with the "Notable" claim.
Someone who is notable to over 1 billion people is not notable to you because you do not know the person ?
And lastly, that honor was given by the state of Georgia and not the city of Atlanta. Bekele was conferred with honorary citizenship of Georgia as a whole and not of the city of Atlanta as there was no mention of the mayor but there was mention of secretary of state and a legislator. A simple research or fair conscience would have shown you that. 
Anyway, We all know the truth. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Caleb Onyeabor, if Mr. Bekele is as gifted as you say, I’m sure he’ll get an article when he becomes CEO someday. In the meantime, the editors above have explained the many ways this article fails to meet this site’s requirements for inclusion. They’re just following the site’s rules. We’re not allowed to waive them here.
If you find our rules onerous, we’re just one website among millions, many of them much better suited to promoting Mr. Bekele. I encourage you to check them out.
I’ll also note the the U.S. State of Georgia cheerfully gives out honorary citizenshipships when politely asked, usually by a local consulate in Atlanta. The fact that the Ethiopian ambassador in Washington is also named Bekele may have helped this process.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just not true. I guess the more I try to explain, the more complicated it becomes Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I think I need to make this clear, I am not promoting Mr. Bekele. I don't know him from anywhere. I have never met him. My focus on this platform is to contribute to edits on personalities and issues in the global black community so that there will be a balance. Thank You. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I kept talking about the fallacy of making too many assumptions. Ethiopia doesn't have a local consulate in Atlanta. I just checked now and found out that you are wrong. There is no such thing as local consulate. I hope you realize that you are insulting the state of Georgia with these assumptions by saying their awards are trivial. It is not good. Thank You. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying Bekele is related to the ambassador because they share the same name ? Oh Wow ! And that the State of Georgia, as big as it is, cannot do a simple investigation to differentiate the Bekele who is an overall ambassador to the USA and the Bekele who is a business executive? You mean if I come to the US now and change my name to Obama, the authorities will be so easily deceived to give me honors that are due to Obama ? I hope you take a deep breath sometimes later and reflect on what you have just said. Thank You.  Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DRATIFY: Move to the draft space. It is only fair to move to the draft space perhaps that will provide an opportunity for other editors to verify the claims. I really did a lot of research for this. It is sad it is turning out this way. I will be fine.

Oh Wow ! For God sake, is notability an exclusive reserve of the western world ? Do Africans need Western validation to be notable ? Why are we towing this line ? Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are plenty of great articles here about Africans written by Africans, but if you can't figure out what kinds of sources should be used and that it's unacceptable for an encyclopedia article to be so full of fluffy promotional language like "ignited", "coveted", "distinguished", "flourish", "currents of destiny" (LOL, hadn't noticed that before!), "monumental", "effective", "trail of accomplishments", "unwavering determination", "adeptly", "unwavering", "unwavering", "momentous", "esteemed", "enriched", "privileged", "inspiring", etc. etc., then you shouldn't be writing articles here. Jesus, not even actual PR copy is this hyped. (By the way, it's "toeing the line".) Reywas92Talk 15:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the problem is now about grammatical correctness: You may also want to take a look at what I found about what you wrote:
1. The sentence lacks proper punctuation and structure, making it difficult to read.
2. The sentence includes informal language ("LOL") that might not be appropriate for formal writing. I am pretty sure you would fail an examination in English language if you use that again.
3. The phrase "not even actual PR copy is this hyped" could be rephrased for clarity.
4. The sentence ends abruptly with "Jesus," which might not be suitable in this context.
If you'd like, I can help you rewrite the sentence to correct these errors. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was told some years ago that when some white people hear about the achievements of a black person especially in the corporate world, the first thing that comes to their mind is "How was he able to achieve this? Is he not black?"... This is the closest I have seen to the above.
I have been wondering why and Wikipedia provided me an answer here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_bias_on_Wikipedia
And oh Wow ! It is real.
Now I know better my friend. Now I see it clearly. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking I would go to your profile and find sources from ivy league institutions 😂 Only to discover that most of your articles rely on the usual media sources and even the same Press releases that people like you consider inappropriate. How do you advocate for one rule for the goose and another for the gander ?
I can't believe I have to deal with this here. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before I forget, there is supposed to be an exclamation mark after Jesus not a comma as it is used as an interjection. Thank You. Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, my Grandma is Nigerian and I love her so much. Look, the fact is some of these sources are problematic and if you are being honest you will agree, that again is your opinion. I personally have created some African articles which I know are notable. If everyone could afford a paid article on one of the top newspapers in a country then practically everyone or anyone would be on Wikipedia.
You are not being hated on, nether is there anyone being racial. You can try creating other articles on other subjects be it Africa, Europe or western. As an editor with good intentions towards Wikipedia, I hope you do not take this personally, but instead work on another another as advised. Cheers. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you open your mind to knowing about Africa. That you don't know what goes on in the continent or know the prominent personalities in the continent does not mean that They are not there. Perhaps if you do, it can help you easily ascertain whether a subject is notable or not. I thought Wikipedia is a global platform ? Caleb Onyeabor (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I see you removed Trainsandotherthings's G11 tag on the article because it's at AFD, but including his comment we have seven votes for a speedy deletion so perhaps you could WP:SNOW close. The above is approaching WP:CIR and even WP:NOTHERE in thinking this is a racial bias issue or even grammar. Reywas92Talk 19:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nominator has indicated preference to keep with no outstanding !votes for any other outcome. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Moore (soccer)[edit]

Melissa Moore (soccer) (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)

Could not find any more significant coverage other than this, and we cannot base her notability on a single source, failing WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources below which show notability. GiantSnowman 07:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To access the EBSCOHost article, log in to Wikipedia Library first, then click on the link and it should work. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deidre Enos[edit]

Deidre Enos (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 independent significant coverage, failing WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Gutteridge[edit]

Natalie Gutteridge (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. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Kofoed[edit]

Amy Kofoed (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)

Failure of WP:GNG. Some coverage here and here, but not enough significant coverage, and it was WP:ROUTINE declaring that she had been drafted as well. Every college player is not notable because they have some local news about them, and this is a case of that. Nothing to be found about her professional career. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Callie Withers[edit]

Callie Withers (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)

Failure of WP:GNG. Some coverage found here, but not enough to justify GNG being passed. A little bit here, but not SIGCOV. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to DAM (band). Duplicated topic. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DAM (Palestinian rap group)[edit]

DAM (Palestinian rap group) (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)

Notability (lack of reliable sources), Original research and Neutralily (the use of phrases like "important voice for the Palestinian resistance movement" and descriptions of Israeli censorship). LusikSnusik (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: The current sourcing is already almost entirely international sources, many of them reliable. Dam have also been around for decades - long enough to have entered scholarship, and plenty of books, so there is absolutely no notability issue here, and article quality alone, unless the state of play is truly abominable, is not a good cause for deletion. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Actually, this went in a weird direction when I was working to improve the page only to realize that it is a recent creation that duplicates DAM (band) (where it's actually a level-5 vital topic, so again, no notability question, though the point is now moot). I've now merged the content from this page to that page, so this page can now be redirected there and become a 'redirect with history'. @Zero0000, FYI. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
great to fine a way for this page. I opt for redirect too Mozzcircuit (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: FYI (should have pinged you too) Iskandar323 (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect doesn't bother me. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: for the same reasons as Iskander323. I'll also note that the OP is non-extended-confirmed and this article (by OP's own words) is related to ARBPIA. Therefore, per WP:ARBECR, OP is not allowed to even comment here let alone initiate the AfD. Zerotalk 04:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Iskander323. Zerotalk 10:02, 25 August 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 Kope Formation. North America1000 12:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Godzillus[edit]

Godzillus (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)

Likely permastub of doubtful notability, also currently an orphan. This article was created back in 2012, when at the time the subject was getting attention in the press for being a "mystery fossil that stumps scientists". After that, however, almost nothing new has been written about it since, except a 2016 study by the fossil's discoverer and other scientists discussing its possible true identity. Alternatively to deletion, this article could be merged into Kope Formation instead, since the fossil was discovered from that formation in the first place. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References:
Meyer, D.L., Brett, C.E., Dattilo, B.F. and Fine, R., 2016. Inverted trilobites: key to complex preservation of an organically textured surface in offshore siliciclastic mudstone and carbonate facies: Kope Formation (upper Ordovician), Kenton County, Kentucky, USA. Palaios, 31(10), pp.453-462.
Retallack, G.J. and Broz, A.P., 2021. Arumberia and other Ediacaran–Cambrian fossils of central Australia. Historical Biology, 33(10), pp.1964-1988.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul H. (talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have looked extensively using various databases and not been able find any addition publications that discuss Godzillus in addition to Meyer et al. (2016) and Retallack and Broz (2021) Paul H. (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Topalian[edit]

Ruth Topalian (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 former gymnast. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGYMNAST. Let'srun (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as additional work has been done on this article since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverted my close. There's an editor seeking to weigh in, which is sufficient for a 3rd relist if we may achieve consensus and potential further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sources are severely deficient for meeting GNG. In the article: 1 (sports-reference.com): stats Red XN. 2 (The Item): single-sentence photo caption on her and two others Red XN. 3 (Palm Beach Post): wedding anniversary announcement Red XN. 4 (Stuart News): local obituary Red XN. Mentioned in AfD: Us Weekly: single-sentence photo caption Red XN. Armenian Olympians: From Athens to Athens: single sentence in a self-published book Red XN. Life: single-sentence photo caption Red XN. It seems all details on her life are sourced to the primary, non-independent anniversary announcement and obituary, which is not acceptable.
JoelleJay (talk) 23:38, 24 August 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. North America1000 12:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aldin Aganovic[edit]

Aldin Aganovic (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)

Tagged as a concern regarding WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC and I can't see any significant coverage cited in any Wikipedia language. My own Austrian search yields only user-generated content and database sources, which are clearly not acceptable per SPORTBASIC. I found Sky Sports, which mentions him once, Lokal Sport, which is just standard match report coverage, and Fan Report, which mentions him only twice. Soccerway suggests that he's been playing at a low level for the last few years, which explains why coverage is hard to find. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ – 2.O.Boxing 11:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Martin (boxing trainer)[edit]

Chris Martin (boxing trainer) (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 GNG. BEFORE search only provided three sources that could be argued as SIGCOV (all written after his death); this is written by the article creator, so doesn't do much to establish notability; this is the strongest, but doesn't really offer much to base an article on (he was well respected, he trained X, people liked him, etc.); this is just a reword of the i.stuff article. All other sources I found were the same kind of passing mentions as what's currently used in the article. – 2.O.Boxing 11:24, 24 August 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. After all but a month on AFD it's clear there consensus against deleting the page, albeit no consensus as to what precisely to do. I'm not spinning the wheel again. Parties can discuss on the article talk page whether a merge, redirect, or otherwise is appropriate. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Roosevelt (businessman)[edit]

Isaac Roosevelt (businessman) (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 indication this article meets WP:ANYBIO. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roosevelt family. None of the sources have any in depth coverage that I can see. The NYT death announcement is a mere notice not an obituary; and his mentions in the family history pieces by Life and the Chicago Tribune are just a couple of sentences. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 11:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three relistings? Should be a no consensus at minimum. As for merging to his house, hopefully "merge" means that almost all of the article will be moved to that page ("merge" is much more than a redirect, it's the merging of two related pages without losing any information or cites). But there seems enough here to meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, there would probably be fewer relistings if we had more editors participating in AFD discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 25 August 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. After a full month on AFD I'm not seeing a consensus here or any realistic prospect of one emerging. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mako (template engine)[edit]

Mako (template engine) (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 to meet WP:GNG. DatGuyTalkContribs 22:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

StereoFolic (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I debated on closing this as no consensus or relisting and decided to relist, hoping that we can have a little more discussion to avoid a no consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 11:12, 24 August 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. Since this is already covered in the school article this fall's to delete. Spartaz Humbug! 11:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viera High School incident[edit]

Viera High School incident (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)

Do we really need an article for every somewhat salacious/scandalous incident which gets some media attention for a few days? WP:NOTNEWS/WP:CRIME intersection. Fram (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It's been three days since the incident took place. The Brevard Public School verified the said incident and issued a statement with respect to the Viera High School hazing incident. If you think that this article is significantly less important than other incidental articles in Wikipedia, such as The Trial of George Zimmerman, the Glenbrook North High School "section student hazing incident", Frank Pavone's "section sexual misconduct allegations", or the Ateneo bullying incident, think otherwise. Madutter (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Trial of George Zimmerman, really? Fram (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we are talking about fairness in controversy and consistency, which is broad, let us include the trial of George Zimmerman. Your argument about this particular article being scandalous is argumentative. The Brevard County Sheriff is conducting a thorough investigation into the incident. It is indeed an ongoing case. The article and the evidence that is cited are certainly not hawsyaw. Madutter (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. An article has to be WP:NOTEWORTHY, notable enough that it warrants its own article (be able to stand on its own). If not, content can be added to its more related article. – The Grid (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Madutter, Why wouldn't this be included in the high school article rather than being a stand-alone article? Why relate this to the Trial of George Zimmerman, which had nothing to do with a school nor simulated sex? It seems like a very odd comparison, with the only similarities being crime and Florida. Millions of crimes have occurred in Florida. — Jacona (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section in Viera High School that talks about the incident that I added. In addition, @Fram said that this particular article is scandalous. It is argumentative. The word controversy, by definition, is broad. The point is that the Trial of George Zimmerman, the Ateneo bullying incident, and the Viera High School incident are three different incidents that were considered scandalous. Madutter (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? And Watergate was also considered scandalous. By your reasoning, the existence of articles on Watergate also somehow justify an article on this, right? That's not at all how notability works. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 19:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the source of the publication is reliable, independent, and treats the topic in great detail, then yes. Why prolong the creation of the article? Madutter (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On side note would like to suggest Madutter to visit and participate at the sister project Wikinews, as far as Wikipedia is concerned they should reduce edit speed and study various policies other Wikipedians are suggesting. And also save own time by avoiding replying every comment here, that's not likely to benefit much. Bookku (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / Delete - Seems to be information that could easily be contained in the school's page. Currently a local news story and does not merit a full article. Is also (as of now) written slightly strangely. A MINOTAUR (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious Baison[edit]

Precious Baison (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 subject has earned at least one cap for the Zimbabwe women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards named after governors general of Canada[edit]

List of awards named after governors general of Canada (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 very arbitrary list that does not appear to meet WP:NLIST - no source is shown that shows that such a listing exists outside Wikipedia and my BEFORE yielded only forks and mirrors of this article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:04, 24 August 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. WP:SNOW keep and withdrawn by nominator. Everyone agrees that the article should be kept, with me being the sole dissenting opinion, however I see no reason to prolong things when it is clear how it will end. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of organisms named after works of fiction[edit]

List of organisms named after works of fiction (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 list is kind of cool, but nothing in it, nor in my BEFORE, suggests it meets WP:NLIST. Sadly, this seems more like WP:NOTTVTROPES content than encyclopedic. But perhaps someone can save this and find sources to add to the lead that show such a list exists outside Wikipedia? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the list is exceedingly well referenced to reliable sources. For what it's worth, there's even more coverage for List of organisms named after famous people (born 1950–present) —siroχo 06:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo Thank you. Can you add those sources to tha article's lead? I'll withdraw this nom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources and comments of other commenters. May be willing to change votes depending on how discussion goes, but for now it seems to be an alright article. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I understand hesitation towards "fun" Wikipedia articles (I agree Wikipedia should not put "entertainment" as a high priority), this list is also useful and does serve a purpose, as there's no shortage of legitimate academic studies (and simple layperson interest) regarding how we as people interact with pop culture, including in things like science and public policy. List of unusual deaths is another example of a "fun" list that also serves a legitimate purpose in... listing unusual deaths in one location. Both lists also have the privilege of being well-made and well sourced. A MINOTAUR (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Fürer[edit]

Martin Fürer (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)

Unreferenced and subject simply does not pass WP:BIO. Looked up "Martin Furer" and "Martin Furer + computer scientist" and found 2 or 3 sources stating that "a pair of Australian mathematicians...", otherwise he's just an educator. I considered moving to draftspace, however I think it's futile if there are no reliable sources to help improve the page. shelovesneo (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza (1878–1920)#Children. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz Gastão of Orléans-Braganza[edit]

Luiz Gastão of Orléans-Braganza (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)

Biography article about a Brazilian person who was a descendant of the then/now-extinct Brazilian royal family. The interwikis seem to have been built on cross-wiki spam. I bring it for community evaluation. Sturm (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zoran Đorđević (photographer)[edit]

Zoran Đorđević (photographer) (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)

Obscure photographer. I haven't been able to find a single secondary source, in English or Serbian, which discusses the subject, so it fails the WP:BASIC criteria guidelines as well as WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. The article content which is unsourced is taken largely from his own website. Griboski (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Podgoršek[edit]

Veronika Podgoršek (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)

Doesn't seem to pass notability under either WP:NPROF or WP:NBASIC. Seems to just run her own practice and do self-promotional things. Mason (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please specify sources that establish GNG since other editors disagree with the assessment of Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gayla Leigh Shoemake[edit]

Gayla Leigh Shoemake (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 does not meet the WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Is a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep There are four links found in Gnewspapers using the "find sources" option above, this is the best [50]. I'd say it's a weak pass. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 24 August 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 Speedily deleted (non-admin closure)‎. NotAGenious (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didier Guillon[edit]

Didier Guillon (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 page is a blatantly and explicitly promotional article dedicated to a French-Swiss entrepreneur. It fails WP:GNG with some clear WP:COI concerns. It was created by a WP:SPA in 2018. GuardianH (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The consensus is to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cwej: Down the Middle[edit]

Cwej: Down the Middle (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 small press spinoff for a minor book character from 30 years ago. Few citations, all from press releases, Twitter and Facebook, and much discussion of things which may or may not happen in future

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tbf, the article does mention "a licensed Dr. Who spin-off", which is pretty obviously a reference to Cwej. Also, not to assume bad faith, but I'd like to note that Emoteag69 has only used their account to delete Who related pages (see their history in regards to Time's Champion) and they only had two or three edits before starting the discussion about deleting this page. I'm sure that this is in good faith, but it is kind of suspicious given the lack of edit history. KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It‘s not universally obvious that it‘s referring to Cwej, and more importantly, it‘s a far cry from WP:SIGCOV. If you have concerns about the nominator‘s editing behaviors, I would suggest addressing them on their talk page or opening an investigation at WP:SPI; I don‘t think an AfD is the right place for that. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, I have to admit, my fanboy obsession sometimes lets me forget not everyone shares my perception on somethings importance. There's another argument I'd like to put forward though in regards to WP:NBook and that's #5:
"The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study."
In this case, though, I'd like to refer to the "author" as Doctor Who the franchise and given how important said franchise is to the world of sci-fi and fantasy it seems like Cwej, even as a less well known part of it, fits the overall "important author/franchise". Because Cwej is officially licensed through all legal channels and it would be a gap in the record of the franchise itself if we deleted the page. KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can equate franchise and author in the way that you suggest. If we could, everything ever written within the franchise would be notable, and that seems quite far-fetched. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this was a fan production I might agree, but this isn't, it's an officially licensed anthology so I don't see how including it would open up the can of worms you're suggesting. It would be nothing out of the ordinary like a fanfilm or something like that, all it would be is another book in the DWU just like the many we already include. And it's not like this isn't notable; Chris Cwej is a full fledged companion and Iris Wildthyme has had a very notable publication history. KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're getting at, but none of these are the guideline-based arguments that are usually considered to be relevant at AfD. There's a pretty firm consensus on WP:GNG, with subject-specific alternatives like WP:NBOOK. Arguing that a topic is notable for reasons entirely separate from these criteria is usually unsuccessful. For example, notability is not inherited; a book about a character isn't notable just because the character itself is. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, we really need to hear from more editors in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Stephens[edit]

Shannon Stephens (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)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Engel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON, there are some insufficient sources according to WP:NACTOR guidelines. MirrorPlanet (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake[edit]

1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake (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’s WP:SIGCOV. Article was previously PRODed for this reason, which was challenged with two reasons. First reason was “not all surprising there are so few sources given it was in Algeria” and second reason was “22+ deaths does mean notable”. At the time of this AfD, there is 3 trivial government sources (2 lack much info and are basic information providers, similar to that of primary sources, and 1 is dead) and 2 academic sources. I consider this article to only have 2 reliable, secondary sources, i.e. the 2 academic sources, which technically aren’t actually used as references for the article, as they are used in a Further reading section, and not actual references. Per the general notability guidelines, I do not see any significant coverage of the topic, which seems to actually be confirmed in the PROD challenge. The number of deaths also does not establish/guarantee notability, especially given the lack of reliable secondary sources used, or well not used. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Done and notification for creator was already done, with the article creator acknowledging it. Thanks for the reminder! Have a wonderful day. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo: Quick question. So with WP:NEXIST, I see what you mean. That said, the articles creator was opposed to using secondary media-references to determine notability. So looking at WP:NEXIST, I see the clause, Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Based on the article creator’s comment, and ignoring the basically primary sources (government ones), the article only has those two academic papers to show notability. If this was something from 80+ years ago, I would say that would be fine, since science wasn’t nearly close to modern times back then. But this is an earthquake from 1999, where new 2023 college graduates were alive at the time. Do you think those two academic papers (and solely those 2 papers, given the creator’s own comments) can truly show the SIGCOV nature of a modern-day earthquake? I’m perfectly fine if your answer is yes, I just wanted to sort of ask/double check, given I think you were unaware of the creator’s comment about really only using those 2 academic papers as sources for the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand your question. So first off, philosophically, to quote WP:N, Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. I.e. if we can find the sources, it's not an indiscriminate inclusion. If it's not indiscriminate, I feel very comfortable also considering WP:NOTPAPER.
Now, to be more specific. 1999 Earthquake that took lives and caused damage to structures. Scientific papers 5 years and 10 years later. I feel comfortable saying this has passed a retroactive WP:10YEARTEST (which of course is just an essay).
Now, expanding beyond the scope of your question and moving further away from philosophical to be really pragmatic, a quick proquest search shows brief non-trivial coverage in a 2023 paper [52]. This subject is not the focus of the paper, but it's certainly not forgotten by any means.
And, lastly, to round off more philosophically. The creator's work is much appreciated but they don't WP:OWN the article. Certainly articles about earthquakes need a scientific foundation, but we can use secondary media reporting for non-scientific claims. (Though, generally we do need to be cautious about primary media reporting coming through news sources, (eg reactions), and keep WP:PRIMARY in mind -- claims that come from news media should be synthesized by the source, not just repetition of primary source claims)
I hope this clarifies my thoughts. —siroχo 07:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article's creator is correct in this case. Breaking news coverage is a primary source and using it in articles is bad practice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dayana Calero[edit]

Dayana Calero (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)

Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least three caps for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Shan't contest this. Danish Ranger (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as I cannot find anything pointing towards GNG either. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:51, 30 August 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.
More