< February 22	February 24 >

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. Consensus appears to be that while Hicks doesn't meet NPOL by virtue of position, he is otherwise notable Star Mississippi 01:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Hicks[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NPOL as he hasn't held state-wide public office, at the very least. Bedivere (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does not need to meet NPOL needs to meet WP:GNG which he does. Andre🚐 22:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State political party chairs most certainly do need to meet NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They can meet the test set forth in NPOL or they can meet GNG, please read it more carefully. Technically, meeting GNG meets NPOL, if you want to quibble on semantics. Andre🚐 23:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Because he passes WP:GNG. In addition to what is already cited in the article, also more here:

Orlov, R. (2014, Nov 18). L.A. county federation of labor picks rusty hicks as new leader. Press - Telegram Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/l-county-federation-labor-picks-rusty-hicks-as/docview/1626376230/se-2 CT55555(talk) 05:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. State chairs do not meet NPOL and this should be a bundled nomination with other chairs who also do not meet NPOL.--Mpen320 (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. State-level political party chair is not a level of office that confers a free pass over WP:NPOL just because the person exists — and contrary to the above assertion, NPOL is the rule that a state-level political party chair would have to pass — but this is referenced mostly to primary sources (his own employers, his own alma maters) that aren't support for notability at all, with what's left for real media coverage not being sufficient in number, geographic range or depth to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the delete contributions above, but no subject that satisfies BASIC/GNG is also is "required" to pass NPOL; no keep contribution is asserting presumed notability on the basis of Hicks being a state party chair. There's substnatial, independent, reliable source coverage of Hicks as a trade unionist alone that satisfies the GNG (some examples among many available: Fresno Bee, LA Times, LA Times LA Times). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while a state chairperson is not automatically notable, they can be shown to be so. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated, passing WP:NPOL is not cumulative with passing WP:GNG. The subject here clearly passes GNG (see LA Times and LA Sentinel coverage) so NPOL doesn't even need to be looked at. Rkieferbaum (talk) 19:28, 2 March 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. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lavora Barnes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted. Does not pass WP:NPOL as she hasn't held state-wide public office, at the very least. Bedivere (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, notable state party chair. Andre🚐 22:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This person, notable primarily as the chair of a state-level political party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the article isn't referenced well enough to get them over WP:GNG. This is not what it takes to make a political operative notable enough for an encyclopedia article. See also previous nomination. Not much has changed ever since. --Bedivere (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few things have indeed changed since the last nomination which was 5 years ago. She became state party chair in 2019. She is also notable as the first black woman in the role and received WP:SIGCOV, she is also notable for being a Clinton press secretary and working in his administration, and as a state director for Obama, and several other positions that have attestation in RS. Andre🚐 22:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, other state party chairs have been deemed notable, she should be too Bwabwa7 (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:POLOUTCOMES. She's not inherently notable for being a local state party chair. Bedivere (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while a state chairperson isn't automatically notable, they can be considered notable if there is evidence. Barnes is in the news again after a successful mid-term election season in 2022. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.243.255.179 (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for passing WP:GNG and thus not needing to pass WP:NPOL. Rkieferbaum (talk) 19:31, 2 March 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 The Voice (American season 18). $Salvio giuliano$ 06:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toneisha Harris[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Meets WP:SINGER #9 but doesn't appear to meet any other notability guidelines and I don't see a pass with that alone. All coverage I found is tied directly to The Voice so she doesn't appear to be notable independent of that. Redirect to The Voice (American season 18). QuietHere (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Maryland. QuietHere (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:REALITYSINGER #2, no notability or significant coverage not related to The Voice. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 22:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. This is a common outcome. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:24, 1 March 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 The Voice (American season 19). History is under the redirect for any merging needs. Star Mississippi 01:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Rubin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Issues from previous AfD still present. Reason for keeping at the time (Meeting WP:SINGER #9 without anything else) is not enough on its own for a notability pass. And there were just as many arguing that to be the case in that AfD as there were those saying it did pass so the keep closure without any relists was quite inappropriate. Redirect to The Voice (American season 19). QuietHere (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. QuietHere (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 22:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I'm not showing that he's passed any additional notability bar since the last AfD or since 2020. I'd redirect to the article for either the TV show or the season of the TV show. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Voice (American season 19) apart from coverage of his win on the Voice I'm also seeing reliable sources coverage of a couple of his singles but no indication of charting or an album release. He certainly passes criteria 9 of WP:NMUSIC which is more than enough for a WP:NMUSIC pass if it is backed up with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. But that coverage is not quite there at present - for example no bio or reviews at AllMusic but he could become notable in the future with charting or an album and the extra coverage that would provoke, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per above. It's surprising there isn't more, but my searches aren't finding enough to merit a stand-alone article, either. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:53, 2 March 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!} 07:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Prelitz[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME. Google News shows some passing coverage in the context of local politics, but nothing approaching significant coverage in reliable sources, and shows no coverage at all of him as an author. Tagged for notability for 6+1⁄2 years. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. (Appears) to have some sources, not sure how valid they are. https://www.google.com/search?q=Chris+Prelitz

DarklitShadow (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 22:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't even find something in this article that would imply he'd be likely to pass notability guidelines. It's not A7 level, but that's an extremely low bar. -- asilvering (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't pass WP:NAUTHOR. Just one entry in Google Scholar with only 2 citations. Article's Early life section is completely unsourced. The single reference in the article is an interview. Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost appears promotional or a linkedin bio. Nothing found for this person, beyond what's given in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai SVA NEC Liquid Crystal Display[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG Medarduss (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, China, and Japan. Medarduss (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this were a new article, I would probably stick a A7 tag on it. Bensci54 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth sources fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as merely existing isn't enough to demonstrate WP:GNG and existence is all that's referenced (or that I can independently find). Rkieferbaum (talk) 19:35, 2 March 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 procedural close. At RfD now. (non-admin closure) J947 † ^edits 05:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness gone mad[edit]

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

~~I think this old redirect should be eliminated via WP:RNEUTRAL. It's not a catchphrase, too~~

To admin: the discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion and should probably be closed here. Suitskvarts (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not needed; just an average overheated cable news channel heated segment name. Nate • (chatter) 22:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not an endorsement of the concept but this seems to be exactly what WP:RNEUTRAL is for: established enough to be the title of at least one (fairly high-profile), book, at least one paper, at least one podcast, and a standard go-to line in countless news articles. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have no article of that title here for the book or the academic paper, and there are multiple non-GNG podcasts with this name. Pageviews have never gone above 27 in this redirect's history. There's no 'there' there to be found. Unless someone crafts a well-sourced article for the book in the next seven days, I'm not finding any indication we should keep this, and it would take less that ten minutes to redirect the mentions to the actual article of political correctness.Nate • (chatter) 23:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow -- we're not arguing whether there should be an article on the book (which is where GNG would apply), but the fact that "the subject matter of articles" -- in this case, political correctness -- "may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms," which seems to clearly be the case. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just realized this is the wrong venue @Suitskvarts:; this should be up at WP:RFD instead as a redirect. As I've voted already NAC'ing this would be inappropriate so someone else should close this. Nate • (chatter) 01:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right! I relisted it in there. Thanks for your explanation. Suitskvarts (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and keep it there. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 28 February 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!} 07:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Hanson[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. Bedivere (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is a politician in a recognised role, plus a source shows she has taken the role.^[1]. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 21:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2019/03/18/democratic-party-of-oregon-gears-up-for-2020-races-with-new-leadership/

Why a regional leader of a political party is notable? She does not pass WP:NPOL, as she hasn't held any public office at the federal, state level. Bedivere (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: State party chairs are not inherently notable ex officio. The only WP:SIGCOV that I was able to find after a thorough search was this limited entry in a local newspaper, demonstrating a failure of WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 19:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Justification: state-level chair does not inherently pass WP:NPOL. There are no media coverage available except self-generated content (such as Facebook) which fails WP:RS. // MitYehor (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @MitYehor. Local and otherwise non-notable politician, given the sources in the article, failing WP:NPOL. The article currently seems mostly puffery. _MB190417_ (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Blad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Brian Blad (2nd nomination)

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

In 2009, this article was nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian blad). The consensus was "keep." Fourteen years later, I believe that the 3 of 6 users who voted to keep, and the decision to keep the article were in error. The AfD invoked several ideas that do not appear to be consensus in 2023 such as "Pocatello is 51,000 population, and we almost always keep mayors for small cities of that size (from memory of recent AfDs, the cutoff seems to be somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000)". I would argue he never met GNG or WP:POLITICIAN, but lines like that do not coincide with consensus today and are what inspired me to raise the idea that he has never met GNG or WP:POLITICIAN.

There are two theoretical claims for notability. His role as a local politician and his role as a business owner. Local politicians are not automatically notable, nor are they not automatically not notable. Reasons a local politician could be notable are unusual longevity in service (see Robert L. Butler, Margaret Doud, or Hilmar Moore), an atypical level of coverage and fame (see a pre-Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman), or qualifying under another criteria in relation to their local political role (see Betty Loren-Maltese and Rita Crundwell as WP:CRIME). Nothing shows that Blad meets those criteria. The sources are local newspapers providing run of the mill coverage of any Mayor. As a businessman, Merlin's Insulation, while more of an accomplishment than I could hope to achieve. However, it is not Pepsi or Bain Capital or Uline where leadership/ownership could confer notability on a business owner.

The article should be deleted. Mpen320 (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. City-level politician fails WP:NPOL. From what I'm seeing on the web, there is no coverage in the media which would make him notable per WP:SIGCOV. I do not understand how 14 years ago other contributors could use a sole population number as justification for notability, when NPOL specifically states otherwise. // MitYehor (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For local officials, the community's expectation is that the coverage illustrates the official accomplishment in office, such as the impact of policies championed by the subject. It often helps if a local official is covered in national or international news (See WP:POLOUTCOMES). In this case, the article is largely "they exist" I do note there are articles in Yahoo News and the New York Times mentioning the mayor, but only are very passing mentions. --Enos733 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Pocatello. A mayor of a city of 45,000 people is not automatically notable, and coverage for Blad is minimal and mundane. 14 years ago, we were still getting our feet wet, so to speak Now, we have more perspective. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There’s not any WP:SIGCOV of the article subject, so it can’t establish notability and it fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. If either of these were met, I could understand the argument for keeping the article. However, deletion is the appropriate outcome given the lack of WP:SIGCOV and failure to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft Speedrunning[edit]

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

I think this might be too closely related to the speedrunning page, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedrunning

I do not think there is a need of a particular page for Minecraft speedrunning. If there is, would there need to be a page for every game that can be speedran? MrBauer24 (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MrBauer24 (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Justification: speedrunning of a particular game (as opposed to speedrunning as a general concept) is not an encyclopedic subject -- as outlined in WP:WHATISTOBEDONE. // MitYehor (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be. It depends on the sources, if it has substantial coverage or not, etc. Please don't generalize. Skyshifter ^talk 23:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind the whole sets of allegations against high-profile speed runners about 2-some years ago. Explaining what MC speedrunning is and the goal, and that there has been a number of these cases is 100% fair game for discussion, just likely not its own article. Masem (t) 13:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, the topic has potential but this article isn't ready for mainspace yet. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 03:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. It's clearly not done yet. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minecraft first. I'm unsure if there should be a split article for the cultural impact of Minecraft (if there isn't one already), but if there is, I'd also suggest merging this topic over there. Regardless, I don't think it warrants an entire article yet. As much as I would be cool with having one, I'm unable to really find sources that cover the speedrunning aspect of the game as a whole, as opposed to ones that talk about individual speedrunners breaking records. Draftifying also seems like a good option, but I'd rather wait until more sources arrive, or someone finds a pre-existing source, that cover the game's speedrunning history as a whole. PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, scratch that. I found this source from PCGamesN that talks explicitly about it - must have slipped past me when I did a WP:BEFORE. Could be more potential than I thought. PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Might be notable, but definitely insufficiently developed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I honestly feel like the topic of speedrunning Minecraft can't really amount to much more than a paragraph or two. There really isn't a whole lot to say about it.

RteeeeKed 💬📖 01:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are other games that have more notable speedrunning communities, but Minecraft speedrunning still has a good amount of potential, IMO. Skyshifter ^talk 23:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Since the page isn't well developed yet, I think it could have notability if more sources can be found. If not, I think it should be merged to Minecraft. Literature-fan23 (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Contributor participated as part of a class project. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – potentially notable subject, but unfinished article. DecafPotato (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Has potential, but not ready for mainspace. Skyshifter ^talk 23:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per above. Sources do exist, and I think this is notable, but it needs development. echidnaLives - talk - edits 23:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are times when NC+BLP means we should default to delete, but this does not appear to be one of those situations as the content isn't problematic. I don't see a consensus coming out of a 4th relist. Star Mississippi 01:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Silfverberg[edit]

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

I'm very doubtful that this article meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics); the only reference currently present in it is from the University of Helsinki and even then it doesn't provide enough information to write an article about him imo. I have not been successful in finding any other sources online about or related to him via Google apart from his own publications. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Biology. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can find a few things from him/including him. As you say, it does seem to be mostly their own work.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Hans+Silfverberg&btnG=

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Hans-Silfverberg-2099090324 MrBauer24 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comment:. My (as a creator) reason is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaarel Sammet--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There was a significant addition by an IP address just before this debate opened, so relisting to form a more solid consensus (don't want to soft-delete due to potential for it to come back quickly).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Poor article, but probably notable subject. A scientist with several insects named after him, and two academic publications with over 300 citations. Jeppiz (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm with Jeppiz, above. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jeppiz Andre🚐 06:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jeppiz and as per this, this and this. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems very doubtful that he passes WP:NPROF and the posters above dont make a strong case for NPROF either, I only see a single article with more than 100 citations (330 citations in Google Scholar) for a work where he was a co-author among 20 other authors. I dont suppose any of the author authors would pass WP:NPROF either based on this article alone. Secondly, there is simply not enough well sourced public material available to write a sensible article about the subject. While naming a species is not enough for relevance, I am not sure whether there is a consensus about having a species named after someone. --hroest 21:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The articles with the 300+ GS citations aren't even research papers, they're a catalog of certain Coleoptera taxa and a list of Finnish insects. These will get cited whenever anyone writes a paper on any of the catalog entries, it's no different from a guideline recommendation coming out of a conference proceedings/consortium or a new database release, which are hardly indicative of academic impact. I'm doubtful his is an otherwise particularly outstanding career among entomologists either, and that's the benchmark for meeting NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 00:15, 18 February 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Justification: fails the 8 criteria points listed in WP:NPROF. The sources listed are not works by the author, they are compilation of bigger research works where he is a contributor, such as number 2. There is no information on the open web available that either allows to make a coherent article or suggests higher notability for this scientist. Sorry. MitYehor (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: On the merits, this is a BLP with no direct detailing of the subject in RS, covering only a few of his works. As an occasional closer, I need to remind AfD !voters that while Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is just an essay, merely associating yourself with a particular argument or arguer is not an effective way to make an assertion, especially when that argument becomes effectively disputed later in the process. The subject is verified, but insufficiently covered in RS to pass GNG and appears to miss NPROF, based on presented and found sources. BusterD (talk) 04:17, 25 February 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. There is clear consensus that notability has not been demonstrated thus far; the arguments to keep don't have a basis in policy, as criteria based on participation have been explicitly rejected. There are indications that coverage in German media may exist: if someone finds some, and wishes to work on a draftspace copy, I would be willing to provide one assuming they're acting in good faith. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Neumayr[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Of the six references included, three of them are sports database entries, two are passing mentions (one of which is just them in a team picture), and one is inaccessible (a book). Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST. There's nothing related to soccer in WP:NSPORT. Intentionally or unintentionally, I don't know.

3 primary sources, which OP has disqualified due to being from "sports databses", which is a new one plus some others which means the article meets:WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. If OP could cite a "no sports databases" rule, that would be helpful. I do not think it exists considering sites like (https://www.basketball-reference.com/) are listed as part of Wikipedia templates for players like Stephen Curry.

The magazine that OP has an issue with cites a book as a source, hence why it was used.

Just because OP does not have the book does not disqualify it. There's millions of books on this site that OP does not have or have access to. Books aren't free, can't be shared without breaking copyright law, nor are there enough copies for 8 billion people. There's also limited availability of books based on where you are located - Not everyone ships to other countries or ever sold books in more than one country.

Additionally, Fritz Neumayr would pass notability for 1) Playing in a top division in Germany (Gauliga), 2) Playing in the top cup of Germany (1931 German football championship), 3) Being a captain of the team. OP has stated that he believes Fritz was somehow made captain of TSV 1860 Munich for only 6 listed appearances in 11 years. That seems highly unlikely, but also ignores the obvious - not every newspaper ever created has been made available online. It seems highly unlikely that no report.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KatoKungLee (talk • contribs) 19:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORT states Sports which are not listed on this page should defer to the Basic criteria for guidance. The target, WP:SPORTCRIT, states Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases.

As discussed on my talk page, participation based criteria (such as WP:NFOOTY, the previous go-to notability guideline for soccer players) is part of what was removed under proposal 3 at WP:NSPORTS2022.

I don't recall stating that I thought he became captain (which we need a source on) with only 6 games played. We should not infer that someone is notable without supporting evidence and the burden is not on me to prove that the sports database references you added are incorrect. I understand not all books are accessible, but I simply don't agree that notability has been demonstrated in this case. Can you point me towards a notability standard that this article currently meets? Hey man im josh (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORTS2022 makes no reference to soccer which is the main problem of this whole debate. The only thing it says is that playing 1 game does not make you notable, which is useless as under that, no player would be notable.

What we do know is that he was the captain on team that was in the top division (Gauliga) and played in the top cup tournament (1931 German football championship). We know he did this over a span of 11 years, so he wasn't a substitute for a day. We also know TSV 1860 Munich played more than 6 games a season (actually 22 games a season) by looking at the 1933–34 Gauliga Bayern, so we know the sources did not have information for all of their games. If you don't believe that he only played 6 games in 11 seasons, which would be the common sense move, I don't really understand why you would mark this for deletion since he played regularly for a top flight team in a top flight division over a span of 11 years.

I've already cited a magazine and a book he was mentioned in, since the book cited the magazine. I've cited three different databases as well. If I find a non-website source with more information, you might say you can't see the book so it doesn't count, which is what you did above with the other book mentioned. Why am I to believe that you would accept a 2nd book when a magazine and book were already rejected? KatoKungLee (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I find a non-website source with more information, you might say you can't see the book so it doesn't count, which is what you did above with the other book mentioned. Why am I to believe that you would accept a 2nd book when a magazine and book were already rejected? – Would you be willing to tell us what's in the books relating to Neumayr? If you have the books and you find that they in-depth cover Neumayr, then the article could potentially be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're speculating a lot so I want to point you to WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. All the sources that we've found state that he's only played in 6 games but you're set on the idea that he's played in far more. Facts must be verifiable, even if the sources used to verify the fact are not accessible to all. WP:NSPORTS2022 is the reason that WP:NFOOTY and WP:NGRIDIRON no longer exist as notability guidelines and it established that participation in a league is not enough to pass notability guidelines. This means you're required to demonstrate that WP:GNG is met.

Why am I to believe that you would accept a 2nd book when a magazine and book were already rejected? We're allowed to disagree but you should remember to assume good faith. I don't think I've done anything that should make you believe I'm acting in bad faith. You mention that the magazine referenced the book, but am I to understand you added it as a reference without having seen the book content yourself? It's fine that a source is not accessible to all those involved but we need to understand what's in the source.

As I stated, the sources that you provided only included a single passing mention each. I'm absolutely open to sources being provided and I'd love to be wrong about an article I send to AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there's a use common sense wikipedia rule, but maybe there should be. It's just not feasible that a player would stay with the same team for 11 years and only play in 6 of 220 games and be made captain, especially in 1930's Germany where they weren't getting paid big bucks. We know he played more (because we'd know if he didn't due to having the most bizarre career in sports history otherwise). We don't know the exact number, but I never claimed the exact number.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its a shame there's no large German newspaper archives – like there is at Newspapers.com for American papers – or is there? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome to share any information you may have and are welcome to assist in researching the article. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Deutsches Zeitungsportal might be what you're looking for. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Although I'm not finding anything relevant under "Fritz Neumayr", someone who can actually speak German may have better luck. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I could have maybe used something from it, but the font chosen for the newspapers I saw was non-traditional and my computer couldn't covert it.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per KatoKungLee. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note a concern that this user was notified of this discussion by KatoKungLee. They were not a major contributor to the article (having only removed the PROD tag) so there was no reason to notify them, but they were notified in a neutral tone. KatoKungLee's rational is also based on participation, a criteria which was removed by WP:NSPORTS2022. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the arguments for keep all relate to participation, which we specifically decided was no longer an acceptable justification for keeping in WP:NSPORTS2022 and, in fact, this type of article is exactly the type that the community was looking to restrict from being created as it's a stats entry rather than an 'article'. Per WP:SPORTBASIC, we require Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. There is no evidence of this. The book that we are all debating about is published by his employer so wouldn't count towards GNG or SPORTBASIC anyway as it's not independent of the subject. If people believe that significant coverage does exist but more time is needed, I would suggest draftify. Otherwise, delete. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it stands this is just a stub article, but there are some issues here, post WW2 which could mean a lot of sources could have been destroyed by war. Yes, there is an issue with game and goal count. It makes sense this is an under count. WP:OFFLINESOURCES is an option here, but because of the period I wouldn't be surprised that it would be a really tough task to get the sources and the information to build an article. This really needed to be started in draft space. I also have one question, is this person the same as the one noted here and here. It's not hard to rebuild from this stage if delete. Govvy (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Therapyisgood (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - The 1949 magazine entry (published by 1860) suggests that Neumayr was one of the most important 1860 players from the club's first 50 years who was still capable of playing in the commemorative match. Some of the other 1860 players who participated are clearly notable (de:Anton Huber (Fußballspieler, I), Ludwig Lachner, Max Schäfer, de:Gustav Thalmeier, de:Max Kob, de:Alois Pledl), so it stands to reason that Neumayr was included in the squad because he was also a notable 1860 footballer. Clearly, we haven't located significant coverage in online sources yet, but I think scrubbing some of the de:wiki articles might help us get there. Jogurney (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that a book (Hardy Grüne, Claus Melchior: Legenden in Weiß und Blau. 100 Jahre Fußballgeschichte eines Münchner Traditionsvereines. Die Werkstatt, Göttingen 1999, ISBN 3-89533-256-9) is cited in several biographies for 1860 players who were contemporaries of Neumayr. I can't be sure that he Neumayr is covered in that book, but knowing that other footballers who played in that 1949 commemorative match are, suggests someone with access to the book might find something useful about Neumayr in it. Jogurney (talk)
This book appears to be available here, but the DNB archive is currently down for maintenance. Jogurney (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jogurney: An editor with access to the book stated that it contained the following information on him (in English): "Fritz Neumayr: In 1929 Fritz Neumayr changed from FC Stern Munich to TSV 1860 Munich, but his big time didn't begin before 1931/32. Since this season the later team captain formed TSV 1860's defense for years together with Sepp Wendl. He played his last season in 1939/40." BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BeanieFan11. I was hoping the book might provide in-depth coverage, but based on that translation, I think it comes up short. I would still support draftification in case there are other German-language books that go into more detail. If Neumayr truly captained 1860 for several seasons in the 1930s, it is possible that something else is out there. Jogurney (talk) 15:45, 2 March 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 per WP:G7 $Salvio giuliano$ 10:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change and the osun river[edit]

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

I'm not sure this essay would be speedyable without an AfD. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Nigeria. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reason: WP:NOTDIRECTORY & subject is already covered in Climate change. // MitYehor (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Climate change in Nigeria. BD2412 T 01:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WPG7 Masteralolabab (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:Thanks for the recommendation. It was not meant to be published. It was a paragraph I was working on in my Sandbox. Please move to the userspace or WP:G7

``` Masteralolabab (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless International Flag[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and probably the COI guidelines (the creator declared their COI, but did not use AfC). Firestar464 (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This Wikipedia entry is made for a self-promoted concept. The flag itself could be notable, but currently it is not: fails WP:SIGCOV. Most sources are social networks, which are not WP:RS. There is no indication in the wide media that this flag is actually used by homeless people around the world (aside from the claims self-made by author). // MitYehor (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MitYehor. Medarduss (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very limited coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no additional coverage found from my side, failing SIGCOV per description above. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. — Preceding undated comment added 11:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:SOAP. As discussed above, there is just not enough sourcing to justify inclusion. Homeless folks are notable as a concept; their flag is not. Worthy cause but not notable. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:36, 1 March 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linus Söderström[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSPERSON and WP:NHOCKEY. There are a few good sources, but every professional athlete receives some media coverage. Nothing suggests the subject of the article is particularly noteworthy. JMB1980 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. Besides the sources in the article there are plenty of Swedish sources, such as [1], [2], [3]. It certainly not true that every professional athlete receives some media coverage, although it may be that every SHL athlete receives some media coverage, given that the SHL is one of the top hockey leagues in the world. In any case WP:NSPORT2022 rejected the notion that merely playing in the SHL is enough to meet Wikipedia notability, but affirmed that sportspeople whose coverage are consistent with GNG do meet Wikipedia notability. There is no requirement that a subject that meets GNG also meet the nominator's notion of what is "particularly noteworthy." Rlendog (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the standard is that every player who has at least two instances of coverage in secondary sources (the minimum requirement to meet WP:GNG) is notable, then there probably isn't an athlete at the professional level who shouldn't have a Wikipedia page. The subject of this article has received about the least coverage one could reasonably expect a professional athlete to receive. Most of the coverage consists of articles that are quite short and mostly pretty routine (i.e. announcing that he signed a contract). As far as I can tell, he isn't notable for anything except just playing in the SHL; that isn't enough to meet notability guidelines, per WP:NSPORT2022. My determination that he is not notable is based on the fact he doesn't meet WP:SPORTSPERSON and/or WP:NHOCKEY. JMB1980 (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would including everyone who meets WP:GNG be a problem? /Julle (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy states not every subject that meets WP:GNG is automatically notable. General notability guidelines are (as the name suggests) guidelines, not a guarantee of notability. Deeming anybody with any media coverage to be notable would result in an excess of low-quality articles about subjects most people would not consider worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Nearly every local politician, criminal, small business, etc. would have a Wikipedia page. It's actually pretty easy to meet the general notability guidelines; I meet WP:GNG but I think most people would agree I'm not notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. JMB1980 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPORTSPERSON and WP:NHOCKEY are SNG's that give indications that a subject is likely to meet GNG. But the primary notability guideline is NSPORT, which refers right back to GNG. And not every professional sportsperson meets GNG. Far from it. Although most players who manage to play in the SHL - one of the top professional hockey leagues in the world - probably do. Because they have reached the highest level of the sport in a country in which ice hockey is important and gets a lot of attention. Rlendog (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument that he might meet WP:GNG but the article should be deleted because of WP:NHOCKEY is explicitly not what WP:NHOCKEY is for. To quote from the FAQ at the top of the page: "if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then they meet Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if they do not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia". /Julle (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. Aside from that, he led the league in GAA and was the starting goalie for a championship team in one of the world's top leagues. And on that note, stating that he fails NHOCKEY is a ludicrous proposition for deletion as NHOCKEY has been almost completely dismantled and only discusses players who would have played at a lower level than him.18abruce (talk) 14:01, 26 February 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. Due to sources added by Jogurney and Milowent. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katharina Griessemer[edit]

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

Even in a German source search, I was unable to locate significant coverage of Grießemer for WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Best sources are Meier, which mentions her twice in a match report, Nord Bayern, also mentions her twice outside of the squad list, and a single passing mention in Donaukurier. I also checked ProQuest but the coverage was only trivial mentions in match reports for youth games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I updated the article a bit since it didn't even have her last team from what I can see. She played in the women's Bundesliga for about five years, does that count for anything? I've not participated in any AfDs before for female German footballers. But i see she has a German wikipedia article and I've always thought of that project as being tougher on notability, though maybe they have a soft spot for their own sportlerin of course.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Playing at the top tier indicates that the subject could be notable but isn't evidence of notability. WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG are the only guidelines that the community accepts for footballers, male and female. Both essentially require that there is significant prose coverage in at least two different reliable, published sources, excluding basic database/stats sites. Having an article on another language Wikipedia is generally not a good indicator of notability as it promotes circular reasoning. Wikipedia is not WP:RS after all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, I'm just saying I think of the German wikipedia as being sticklers for notability even more than us. This athlete left the Bundesliga in 2008, 15 years ago, so finding articles is going to be harder now. de:Liste der Fußballspielerinnen des FC Bayern München is a list of *every* player on the female FC Bayern team since 2001 (when they were promoted from the next tier), and almost every one of this massive list has their own article on the German wikipedia. I know I know that's not "proof". And I know there's no real harm if this article is deleted, because about zero non-german speakers will ever think to look this person up at this point. Before today this article suggested due to lack of editing that she was still on the team she left in 2014 and was apparently still playing football now in her late 30s. So I'm really just idly pondering the article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm finding routine coverage only - match previews/reports, injury updates, signing announcements that have a sentence about her at most (Hamburger Abendblatt is typical). Nord Bayern has an article about her club, managed by her father, which briefly mentions her time there. Overall, it doesn't look like there is SIGCOV available. Jogurney (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found this and this in the Allgäuer Zeitung which are quite good - interviews with a decent amount of prose from the journalist. Jogurney (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh these are indeed good, plus I've added two more from that newspaper to the article. I've comfortable keeping this now.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Happy to withdraw if @GiantSnowman: agrees. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to keep based on new sources presented again @Spiderone:. Good work. Giant Snowman 10:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Russians[edit]

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

Redirect to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine contested by creator. Fundamentally a propaganda expression used primarily within Russia to identify those supporting the conflict. Unlike Good Germans after WWII to identify those against the regime, this seems the opposite. Searching for the term returns some results, though it should not be conflated with those which use the term as part of something more general. I think at best it's WP:TOOSOON to draw any conclusions as to it's long-term noteworthiness. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't really understand the nom. The phrase seems widely in use, particularly in Russian media. There is clearly a war-of-words between the participants in the conflict, but I'm not sure it is really a valid policy reason to delete to suggest that the content is likely to be disputed. Maybe it should be. JMWt (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt: My concerns are around how notable the expression is at this time, not least that it can have starkly different interpretations based on where it's being used. The conflict is not at the stage where such a term can be reliably considered noteworthy, being mindful to keep an objective outlook as it could stir up some strong opinions. I redirected for that reason, to preserve the history if such a time came that viable development could occur, but this was reverted. Thus, it was then either kept as-is or offered to the community for discussion, so I chose the latter. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More RUSUKR war cruft, this time in neologism form. Some limited usages of this term is not enough to demonstrate notability at this point in time. Curbon7 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as possible. I am from Ukraine. The article context is currently wrong and misleading. I suspect that the author either 1) not a Ukrainian-speaker or 2) did this on purpose, because they got exactly the opposite meaning. Article reference #3 clearly explains (in Ukrainian) that 'good Russians' are passive opposition to Russian war politic (similarly to Good Germans) and debates whether Ukrainians should consider all Russians as their enemies or not.

Such debate has sprung a meme-reference wave from radical Ukrainians, who started calling war casualties 'Good Russians', implying that only only a dead Russian can become a good one.

This term itself has already become a staple catchphrase among Ukrainians addressing Russians, so it is notable at this point. However, an article like this must go through AfC process. I urge you to please delete this as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitYehor (talk • contribs) 21:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is intentionally misleading. And of course writing this article based only on partisan Ukrainian sources is just nonsense. Portraying Maksim Katz as a pro-Russian influencer is ridiculous.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The phrase has very different meanings in Russia and Ukraine, and elsewhere depending on your point of view. We shouldn't be guiding readers to one side or the other. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know it's weird for someone who created the article to support its deletion but I've realized that I've unintentionally misleaded people so I support the deletion of the article. RowanJ LP (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Ukrainian so I had to do a manual translate, if you could help out and change the article a bit to show the true meaning about the term please do so, and I'm sorry for the misleading article. RowanJ LP (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RowanJ LP: Although I think you had good intentions, writing such an article when you aren't a native speaker, about a conflict which is very divisive and bound to bring up some strong feeling, is unwise. I also am not a native speaker of the language so it wasn't immediately evident to me the extent of how misleading it was compared to the citations, but I could see that in it's current form it was problematic. It is possible that the term/concept, in time, could become notable which is why I redirected, but the concerns about the current state are reasonable. Fair enough though for you accepting the concerns raised here. Perhaps moving forward, any such articles you want to write are best sent via WP:AFC for some scrutiny. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : As written, it is completely contrary to any meaning that I've encountered. As @MitYehor pointed out, the article directly contradicts at least one of the sources. In addition, it leaves out a great deal, which if the article were kept, it should include. And the breadth of meanings/implications of the actual usage is quite broad, so I don't think a rewrite would resolve the problems. Radzy0 (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:SIGCOV. It appears to exist, but the current stub is a hot mess. It is not obvious if the translations are correct. In any case, the grammar is terrible and the sourcing is shallow. It appears to be a very bad Google or AI chat translation of an article. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per war cruft, POV and WP:TNT. Does not meet Wikipedia standards. Kierzek (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's not much to add here so I join the rationale of other editors. Neologism of dubious encyclopedic value. --Killuminator (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Putra Aprilianto[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who played 15 minutes of football then disappeared. Searches including an Indonesian source search did not yield significant coverage. I have dismissed Tribun News Wiki as a source because it openly admits to using Transfermarkt and Mitra Kukar's own website as sources, so is not reliable. Aside from that, we have only squad list mentions such as Bola and Tribun News. Even if Tribun News Wiki were somehow acceptable, this still wouldn't meet the threshold for multiple sources, as required by WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best of the Best PLC[edit]

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

No in-depth reliable sources. Fails WP:NCORP. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 17:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 17:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree this fails NCORP, I myself was unable to find RS SIGCOV on it. Most of the reporting, when it exists, focuses on the prize won and not the company which I argue is not SIGCOV. Some RS on the article, like racetech, seems affiliate coverage. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:SIGCOV. This raffle, which is just a raffle, has raised money for charity, but we are not a compendium of charities nor are we the soap box in Hyde Park Corner. The coverage is either in social media or very shallow ("Mrs. Bucket of Worcestershire won an Audi today" sort of coverage). Bearian (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 2 March 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 Frank Bello#Equipment. $Salvio giuliano$ 06:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Frank Bello Bass[edit]

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

Non notable instrument. No references since 2014. No references forthcoming, just capsule reviews and commercial websites, so this fials WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Mikeblas (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Fender products or Merge to Frank Bello#Equipment per WP:PRESERVE (just in case we expand that list to include signature models). Why? I Ask (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Fender products is for products "which have their own Wikipedia articles". -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It wasn't always that way up until recently where it was changed without large consensus. The list criteria can always be discussed later. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 17:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Frank Bello#Equipment, which seems a better target than Why's suggestion. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Dapra[edit]

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

Not finding evidence of a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO based on included sources & search. Article appears to read like an advertisement. ASUKITE 17:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and United States of America. ASUKITE 17:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. ASUKITE 17:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is a professor with years of corporate experience and founder of multiplecompanies. As a professor, he also qualfies for article 2 of WP:NACADEMIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shender1 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC) — Shender1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete I could not find the required significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources to meet our notability guidelines. The subject also fails WP:NACADEMIC. I disagree with Shender1, since the Rosenblum Endowed Professorship is not a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Keep””l found several academic articles, a published book, and other articles that meet guidelines. I think the Rosenblum scholarship should be edited to remove highly prestigious. It clearly is an honor at the university and University System of NH. It needs counts. User)Profones77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profjines77 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC) — Profjines77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reliable sources must be independent from the subject to help establish notability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Care to share any of those articles and books? We can't just take your word for it. -- asilvering (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

apologies I should have been more thorough I appreciate you pointing out my mistake here are some results I quickly found.

a search of recommended scholar works shows an internationally published book on leadership and research works or contributions.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Jonathan+Dapra%22

Also, a general search showed several blog posts as a contributor: https://corp.smartbrief.com/original/2020/12/navigating-road-doer-leader

it was noted he blogs from https://www.alaricpartners.com/blog

and I saw three published articles on teaching and engagement at The Teching Professor with various co-authors:

https://www.teachingprofessor.com/author/tp-wratcher-dapra/

https://www.teachingprofessor.com/topics/teaching-strategies/blended-flipped/informal-assessment-activities-for-blended-and-online-courses/

I think this backs up his University bio and the statement in the article Profjines77 (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, none of these are helpful for passing WP:NPROF. I'm not sure what guidelines you think they meet? These are things that he has written or contributed to. What we would need to establish WP:NPROF is that other academics have written about him or his work. -- asilvering (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, he has an h-index of... 0. Not even remotely close to a pass of WP:NPROF. -- asilvering (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~
as noted in the Wikipedia guidelines:
- Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others.
Profjines77 (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's about deleting articles because you think an h-index isn't where it should be, not because there is no apparent evidence of any citations at all. -- asilvering (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a large chunk of the education and career section is an extremely close paraphrase of biography at [4], which site carries a copyright symbol and no obvious get out. I'm not a copyright expert but strikes me as nearly speediable? Elemimele (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An assistant professor with no citations to his work comes nowhere near any of the criteria of WP:PROF, and, as Elemimele points out, our article is a copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability for NPROF and it seems the University where he got his PhD was a for profit business that was basically running a scam (or as noted by the attorney general "engaged in deceptive marketing practices.") on their students and is closed now. Overall not great accolades and I dont think that the named chair [5] he holds would fulfill Criterion 5 as a "a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". --hroest 14:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that sort of named chair does not go to an assistant professor. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mischaracterization.this is a bias not based in fact. Although the University ultimately closed and some programs questions, the Argosy business school was fully-accredited by WASC regional and also, had ACBSP accreditation for its doctoral programs. I taught there and I will say that the end was a business debacle with a sale to the Dream Center, the degree is more than credible. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/argosy-university-awarded-accreditation-of-its-business-programs-300096306.html T. kemp Profjines77 (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Obvious fail of WP:ACADEMIC, does not come even close to meeting any of the eight criteria for notability. A non-notable academic holding a minor position in academia and without any hint of an a academic publication record. PhD from a sham university that has been closed down. Probable copyright violations. Jeppiz (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
personal bias in calling a degree a sham university. As noted above— accredited by WASC (thus able to receive Federal funds(p) and also, business-specific accrediting by ACBSP - https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/argosy-university-awarded-accreditation-of-its-business-programs-300096306.html T Kemp Profjines77 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to strike the "keep" you've written on all three of your replies. Right now it looks like you've tried to !vote four times. -- asilvering (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so myself and also removed additional !vote above the title. @Profjines77: Please feel free to remove the extra keep !votes. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I came upon this page because I follow the guy. He is a well-known businessman and a leadership consultant. He has spoken at my company. You keep talking about him purely as an academic, I would categorize him as a businessperson first and foremost. Then as an author. I read his bio at his company www.alaricpartners.com/about and it is similar to what is written on his university page This appears to be reasonably paraphrased, not plagiarized. I think he is more than notable–thus my surprise there was this note above his page. I type his name into Google and his book and other stuff come up for multiple pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.154.233 (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC) — 24.112.154.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
If he is notable as a well-known businessman and a leadership consultant can you please give us some independent reliable sources showing that? The ones in the article are a press release by his company, two academic sources confirming that he is an assistant professor and a book written by, rather than about, the subject. I can find nothing better. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're looking at him as an academic in the replies here because none of us have any disagreement to make with the nominator about the subject's failure on WP:GNG and WP:BIO counts. The nominator didn't mention the subject's academic notability or lack thereof, so others have looked into it. He obviously does not meet those guidelines either. -- asilvering (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The flagrant WP:BLUDGEON violations by a few WP:SPA accounts here are highly suspicious, as is the IP whose only Wiki-contribution is to vote "keep" here. For all the bludgeoning by the SPAs , the fact remains that there is no notability whatsoever (as every established user has pointed out). Jeppiz (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: he is a "named professor" at Plymouth State. Does this qualify for NACADEMIC Criteria No.  5, (named chair or distinguished professor appointments) as an alternative title for determining notability under NACADEMIC? BhamBoi (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. -- asilvering (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply above and note 5b of WP:PROF. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, the guidance for WP:NPROF C5 says it "can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments." (It is also somewhat doubtful that Plymouth State is "major" for this purpose.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Neither the notability guideline for academics nor any other relevant standard are met. Changing a major developer of digital effects and Photoshop plugins to a leading developer of digital effects and Photoshop plugins is not how to write; it is thinly recycling promotional glurge. Kill it with fire. XOR'easter (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Heavily promotional, with no evidence of notability as an academic, author, or businessperson. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or userfy per WP:TOOSOON. He is only an assistant professor, which we hardly ever keep per WP:PROF. His first book was published three weeks ago. In 2023, everyone knows we are not a free web host for up and coming management gurus. A for-profit college is not necessarily a sham (disclosure: I used to work in the field), but neither is where he earned his doctorate nor where he teaches especially recognized. ~Zero h-index and close copying are red flags. Bearian (talk)
Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:45, 1 March 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 per WP:CSD#G5. The article was created in violation of a block, and the article has no substantial contributions from other editors. Mz7 (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kourosh Torbatzadeh[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable singer and actor. Fails to meet WP:NACTOR or at best WP:GNG. Sources are mostly from IMbd which is unreliable and the roles played by the subject are but minor roles in films. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources of any type for this artist. Promotional article. No charted singles, bit acting parts. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear management, Hello, please don't delete this article. Thank you. If you help me improve this article, what should I do?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitorbatzadeh (talk • contribs) 16:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Clerked from top of page to correct location by Skynxnex (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alitorbatzadeh, please read and Help:My article got nominated for deletion! and in particular Wikipedia:How to save an article nominated for deletion. Sadly, it seems at this point Torbatzadeh probably does not meet Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY guidelines (which may not match your expectations of notability). I see on your talk page that there was some effort at helping you, so please re-read and try to understand that. Briefly, again. There needs to be independent articles and coverage of the person in questions, not just about the works (in general). Please try to read some of if you want to get very lost in the details (which are important): WP:Biographies of living persons, WP:RELIABLE, WP:NOTEABLE, WP:INDEPENDENT, and for this article: WP:NMUSIC and WP:NACTOR might give you more details about what is expected for someone who is notable solely for their music and/or acting. Thanks. Skynxnex (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Iran. Skynxnex (talk) 16:29, 23 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 15:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Family[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. I don't see anything to suggest it won awards or was in any other way notable. If anyone can find reviews that meet the GNG, I'd be interested to see them, otherwise I suggest delete (or possibly merge to Monica Dickens if there is anything to merge. JMWt (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reviewed in Evening Standard, Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph. Jfire (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying this meets the requirements of WP:NB? JMWt (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a slam-dunk but I do think it's enough to meet WP:NB. On the other hand, the article as it stands is in WP:TNT territory. So I don't have a strong opinion either way. Jfire (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monica Dickens, unless someone pulls a WP:HEY on this before the end of this AfD. TNT territory is right. -- asilvering (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is, thanks folks. -- asilvering (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
1. Catling, Patrick Skene (1993-05-27). "Shop talk and hidden malice". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Her last novel is up to her usual standard — humane, world wise and gently witty. ... She is especially good at conveying a sense of the solemnly self-regarding hierarchy of a grand commercial establishment that seemed then as permanent as the Pyramids. Writing with the enthusiastic thoroughness of a female Arnold Bennett, she makes Whiteley's and the Morley family symbols of England just before the Great War and Tobias Taylor an agent of destructive change. How "as one of the family", by means of accidentally false medical diagnosis and deliberate seduction, he brings about ruinous tragedy makes this novel full of surprising twists and an admirable memorial to the craftsmanship of Monica Dickens."
2. Milne, Kirsty (1993-04-10). "A love triangle tinged with guilt". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Monica Dickens evokes the age of corsets and chloroform without slipping too far into the nostalgia trap. Her tendency to jump between a large cast of characters sometimes leaves the novel a little unfocused, but her brisk energy supplies a narrative drive of its own."
3. Mann, Jessica (1993-04-25). "Keeping it in the family. Jessica Mann on Monica Dickens's final family saga". The Sunday Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "One of the Family is otherwise based on research into the life of Edwardian London. The plot concerns the actual murder of William Whiteley, of the Queensway store; but this is not a murder story. It is a rambling tale of an extended family. Although the cast is a few steps down in cast from Galsworthy's characters, we are in Forsyte territory."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow One of the Family to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you, Jfire (talk · contribs), for finding these sources. I've added the sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've trimmed most of the excessively breathless plot section. The reviews satisfy WP:NBOOK. pburka (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY improvements from Cunard and pburka. Jfire (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:14, 1 March 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 National Commission for Persons with Disability. Viable AtD Star Mississippi 01:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James David Lalu[edit]

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

Certainly accomplished, but not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. Was redirected to the organization, but that was contested. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the organization seems ok, I don't find much coverage about this individual alone. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia nobility criterion is subject to debate but the subject of the article leads more than 30 million people with special needs in the country. He is the pioneer national leader of persons with disabilities but facts about him are sketchy. Sites like Wikipedia are the resort of many readers and researchers to know about him. For that, there are more reasons to consider and sustain the article than technical ones delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamsu Rabiu Galadunchi (talk • contribs) 14:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But we need sources that discuss him at length in reliable sources, this isn't a "feel good" encyclopedia, we need facts to support these statements. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 23 February 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. Star Mississippi 01:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Valletta Cup[edit]

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

Non-notable tournament consisting of teams of totally non-notable players. The fact that the International Cricket Council gives all international T20 matches the same status does not take away from the fact that there is insufficient coverage of this tournament to pass WP:GNG, as there is no sustaining coverage of this event. Articles on minor associate teams of non-notable people playing minor tournaments/series against each other is not the purpose of this encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Europe, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least redirect to Associate international cricket in 2022. There is at least some national mainstream media coverage from Gibraltar and there was a record or two set, but a redirect to a season summary page (which is designed to encompass all official ICC series to avoid articles on the least significant events) should be a minimum result. Bs1jac (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm with Bs1jac on this one, but lean more toward keep over redirect. I think all international tournaments should have articles, but the players that take part, with the odd exception, should remain de-linked. StickyWicket (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should all international tournaments should have articles? They should only have articles if they pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My take isn't that every tournament should have an article, but established recurring annual events like this one should be considered if there is some coverage in the media of one of more competing nations. Bs1jac (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm also with Bs1jac on this one, but think we should keep it. --Bduke (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bs1jac's reasoning. I understand that every single international event isn't suitable for articles (although I personally do want that to happen), but this particular event does seem to have enough notable coverage. মাশ্‌ফী※Mashfi (ETP) 10:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it isn't wide spread, doesn't mean it shouldn't be on here. :_Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 13:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teufels Großmutter[edit]

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

It's a one series TV show which ran for 12 episodes. I don't have access to German-language media of that era, but I can't find anything to suggest it was particularly beloved and noted then or since. The article on de.wiki doesn't appear to offer much more information and nothing which would satisfy the GNG here [6] JMWt (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Germany. JMWt (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [7] [8] [9] [10] This has enough coverage for a start class article, and stars notable actors. We'd be better off having it than not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without even getting into a discussion about reliability of those sources, they are all extremely short. One is one line. Also, to add, until I recently added the date there wasn't even basic information about the subject on the page. Given that it has existed since 2011, surely that's sufficient time to have gotten beyond being a start class article. JMWt (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is working on German TV series on English Wikipedia that's why. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I'm finding (and including those linked above) are short listings, either IMDB-like, sales sites, or "what's on TV today." If anyone has access to reviews in reliable sources, please link. I'll check back. Lamona (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Blofeld. Even trivial TV series are almost always notable because they are almost always discussed in newspapers or magazines. A search in Google Books shows some coverage too. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading some comments on some sites and people are saying things (translated) like "I loved watching this series as a child. It brings back memories." and "This series is simply cult. You can't compare it with today's television world." Released on DVD in 2007 and has also been released on Blu-ray, so it's not as if the series is a forgotten one either. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, "I loved watching this as a child" is not one of the WP notability criteria. We need non-routine independent articles, like reviews (substantial). Aymatth2 - did you find any books with lengthy articles about the TV show? Most of what I've seen is the name of the show listed in articles about various actors. We need 2-3 strong sources about the show, with strong meaning not just a few sentences in a television guide. Lamona (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a sort of "guilty until proved innocent" argument. It may be hard to find online versions of reviews in the German magazines and newspapers published in the pre-internet period when the series was being aired. It is extremely unlikely that the press completely ignored the series. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And it was ZDF, one of the main channels in Germany...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We still need sources, that's the rule. I didn't make it up. Lamona (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources are all trivial or minimal mentions. There don't seem to be any reviews of the DVD release. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given that this series was pre-internet, does anyone involved in this deletion debate have any access whatsoever to historical paper sources in Germany? An early evening show on one of the main TV channels back in the era that there were only about 3 channels is not something to delete lightly. Elemimele (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did some searching in German newspapers and magazines and they do retrieve articles going back to before the time of this series. I didn't find the series mentioned, but my German is limited to few words so I was just looking for this series name to pop up. Someone with the language ability should do the search. I also didn't know which sources were likely to carry TV show reviews - I did Der Spiegel and Die Zeit and that was a random selection. Lamona (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were reviews in the major newspapers. I added some quotes. You won't find full articles about the series from 1986 in most of the online newspaper sitesm but they do exist. The source for the quotes is from OneGate Media which states "We are a top German distribution and licensing company for film and television. Founded over 60 years ago as a subsidiary of NDR, we belong to the Studio Hamburg Group, one of the leading production houses in Germany." ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only source that isn't just a listing/name check is the onegate media, and that is pretty thin. I note that there are quotes in the section Reception that are not sourced, yet they presumably come from somewhere. I looked at WP:MOSTV and it does seem to require major reviews to meet GNG. WP:NTVNATL unfortunately isn't very informative; I had hoped it would provide guidance. Lamona (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Dr. Blofeld--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, substantial reviews were added by Dr. Blofeld. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Dr. Blofeld.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I wish I'd been able to shake loose the originals of those press reviews, or more about its place in Horney's career (one of her last roles). But I was able to add more on the production and broadcast history, and trusting that those reviews are real, that's sufficient coverage in reliable sourcesto establish notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 07:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Sultan Iskandar[edit]

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

It's a school with no suggestion of notability on the page, no other RS found. JMWt (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. JMWt (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NSCHOOL Kazamzam (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The Malay version of this article is also poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 13:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:23, 1 March 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 Grand Pro Wrestling. Star Mississippi 14:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Hope (wrestler)[edit]

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

Another independent no notable wrestler. Sources are just WP:ROUTINE with no focus on him. Quick research, also ROUTINE results [11] HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 12:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth sources found from my search Carpimaps (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grand Pro Wrestling which mentions this subject. I also cannot find sourcing which passes WP:PW/RS to meet GNG. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)}
One of the things that needs to be kept in mind here is that there are no major wrestling organizations outside of the US, Mexico, Japan and Puerto Rico (and people here who don't know better would question those wrestlers). Most of the wrestlers in the world are going to be indy wrestlers. I don't know if that's fair since the pathway to getting into a major company if you aren't from 7 or so countries is extremely difficult.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aries Vismayas Max[edit]

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

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL recording studio, lacks coverage meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, India, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 12:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, none of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Lots of quotes from company officials but no CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:40, 23 February 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 as a hoax, which also corresponds to my own conclusions--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baikonur Krai[edit]

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

An editor (latest IP 212.164.64.253) has been edit-warring over a speedy deletion tag, originally declined by User:Bbb23. The last time was with edit summary "Stupid vandalism. Check the sources, it isn't mentioned in any of them. The user who created this is banned in ruwiki for hoaxes." If we have to check the sources then it's not a case for speedy deletion, so I am bringing here. I have no opinion yet on whether this should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of making this nomination and edit conflicted. Adding my rationale from there as a nominator - Prodded, correctly, by an ip, as a hoax. The Krais of Russia are federal subjects, with representation in the Duma, the Federation Council, with appointed heads, etc. Yet there are no sources for there being, now or ever, an extra-territorial krai for Baikonur, in Kazakhstan. The sources all used (eg [12], [13], refer to the city of Baikonur, or its launch complex, or are generic sources copied over from articles on actual krais like Altai Krai. There are no book or websearch returns for a Baikonur Krai in Russian or English. There are no references in official Russian government sources to a "Baikonur Krai". The creator, User:Carolina Mahadewi Malin, is blocked on ru wiki for edits similar to this, referring to a fictional krai. The user is also the author of the Indonesian wiki article, a copy of this one, with the same faulty sourcing. Would ideally suggest WP:SPEEDYDELETE as a WP:HOAX, and the user blocking. Spokoyni (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spokoyni (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Spokoyni (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax or a misreading of sources. Mccapra (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Obvious hoax. This is a city that russia leased not an outright krai of the russia. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. I agree the sources don't support the statements made in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, WP:HOAX. Finstergeist (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, very obvious hoax. Silikonz💬 16:39, 23 February 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Baltic Sea Darts Open[edit]

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

Another one of these darts tournaments which is wholly sourced to primary sources. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage coverage to meet GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Are you actually an idiot!!?? This is one of the big darts tournaments, outside a televised tournament. Why does it need extra sources anyway?? And it certainly has general notability in the darts world!! Just because you know nothing about darts, doesn't mean you can ruin it for anybody else, and the tournament starts tomorrow, so you're wasting your time anyway. JRRobinson (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a free web host for the PDC. Are there any news sources picking up on this at all? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are, but obviously the PDC will have all the necessary info. JRRobinson (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

which is not what is required. We need independent, reliable sources, not what the organization says about itself. Star Mississippi 16:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure if "what organization says about itself" applies there, since there is no bias towards or against organization. It's just information about draw, who qualified how and when. Haifisch7734 (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however there are currently no other sources offered, and the argument is about whether these are sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. JMWt (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if it isn't mentioned in independent, reliable media, it isn't noted. If it isn't noted it isn't notable. If it isn't notable then it shouldn't be here per WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMWt (talk • contribs)
Let's see if coverage comes out this week during the tournament, so no !Vote yet. However JRRobinson's continued creation of articles when they don't understand notability clearly needs to be addressed. Disclosure, I have nominated one of their articles. Star Mississippi 14:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @‎Yngvadottir for the ping reminder. It does appear that sufficient sourcing has covered the tournament. I have not reviewed it for depth, but would say weak keep on this. I may upgrade that with time to review the sourcing. Star Mississippi 14:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case it would appear to be technically WP:TOOSOON and perhaps should be moved to draft. On the other hand I guess if we really believe there will be a lot of media coverage in the next few days then maybe you are right and let it lie.

I also apologise for forgetting to sign my comment before JMWt (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You guys just don't get darts, do you?? Why don't you actually leave the darts pages to darts fans who know what we're on about. The European Tour is the highest level of darts below the major/premier events, which the world audience sees all the time. In terms of notability, it's right up there, it's in its 12th year is the European Tour!! And in terms of other media coverage, it's even being shown on UK television for the first time thanks to a new deal with Viaplay Sports. https://twitter.com/ViaplaySportsUK/status/1628756654933041154?cxt=HHwWhICzrYrjwJotAAAA So, this notability-less malarkey is just that, malarkey. JRRobinson (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the WP:GNG. We are simply discussing the guidelines, not darts. That's it. JMWt (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EVERY European Tour event since it began in 2012 has its own page!! It's a BIG DEAL!!! You guys just don't get it... JRRobinson (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about having page or not, it's about sources. Try to use different sources, apart from PDC website. Haifisch7734 (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please leave Darts articles alone. The PDC is a perfectly good source for the draw and results because they organise the event. Effy Midwinter (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For that exact reason, it is an unacceptable source and does not confer notability. See WP:IS, WP:GNG, WP:SPORTSEVENT as three relevant guidelines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the organisers of any sporting event are the only definitive source for objective factual information such as scorelines and draws. Every secondary source reports those results as they are determined by the organiser. Effy Midwinter (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a violation of WP:NOTDATABASE. Articles rely on significant, independent reliable sources to be notable. That these matches happen is not necessarily sufficient for an article. Star Mississippi 03:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to PDC European Tour. Considering that past events at this venue do not have articles, what makes this year's event so special that it warrants a page? ArcAngel (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every European Tour event has its page since it started in 2012. 97 articles. And this year it's first year there is Baltic Sea Darts Open in Kiel, so there were no past events at this venue, so there are no articles about it. That's why this one is first. Haifisch7734 (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, there isn't much coverage of the event, there's this [14] and this from Planet Sport via Yahoo [15]. The rest are betting sites and live streams. A few more sources, we'd be GNG-adjacent. Oaktree b (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might be too soon, the even is about to open. L'Equipe in France covers darts tournaments [16], but they only have info from January 2023. Perhaps hold off for a week? Oaktree b (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Notability_(sports) contains lists and examples of events that are notable in all sports. Darts is missing. It would seem reasonable to me to put a list there, so that the discussion surrounding the notability of different PDC tournaments is not continuously up for discussion. Using this template, for no other reason than it is available, it would seem to divide current tournaments into "Premier", "Other" and "Youth". I suppose the Youth is a World Championship, so could be deemed notable. The grey area is the "Other" list. The European Tour is a step above the Pro Tour (it is on a stage with a crowd, the prize money is higher), and the people working on darts articles seem to acknowledge that distinction already. The Players Championship Pro Tours just have a summary from the Quarter Finals on, rather than the entire 128-player bracket. The European Tour tournaments have a full 48-player bracket and their own page, and do not include the qualifying part of the tournament at all. In summary, my suggestion is to Keep whilst a set of darts notability guidelines are added to Wikipedia:Notability_(sports). 91.110.26.155 (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At last someone who understands!! People on here just can't understand how the PDC darts system works, and us lot who do the info do a decent job in trying to do pages that are detailed for the majors/premier tournaments, decent enough info for the European Tour, and just general summarisations for the affiliate tours. It's nice to show how diverse the PDC Tour really is, and it has enough links to show where the info is from. Darts does need an update on that "notability" front, but these European Tour events are well talked about in darting circles, and certainly deserve individual pages!! The fact we've just had the 98th European Tour speaks for itself!! JRRobinson (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's, IMHO, enough independent coverage to keep the article, also merging would make any parent article excessively large. Seems fine to keep this. --Jayron 32 12:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Star Mississippi suspected might happen, extended coverage in independent sources appeared once the event happened. I was able to add Sky Sports and the winner's local newspaper, saw others, and Sky Sports covered the maximum score record. I also quoted a German local news article on the latter (text is blanked out for me but Google shows me the passage). There's at least one article in Dutch that also covers the record. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Star Mississippi 03:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CleanItSupply[edit]

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

An article describing the product proposition of a company supplying cleaning products, sourced to press releases (the fuller version of the award PR quotes reproduced by korea.issa.com is here). Searches find passing mentions, verifying this as a company going about its business, as does the Apruve survey rating, but failing WP:CORPDEPTH; nor does their @CleanItTV YouTube channel appear sufficiently significant to serve as an alternative basis for notability. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pennsylvania. AllyD (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I will update the article with other sources shortly. This is what I could find during my initial search. Since the company is well-known and well-established in its field, it should be possible to find more sources to back up the article. Vb123123 (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I agree with AllyD's reasoning but think that if Vb123123 is willing to work on the article to improve it, draftifying it would be a better way of keeping the article out of mainspace. However, since I was unable to find sources I would also support deletion on NCORP grounds. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing about the article that might be taken down because it doesn't have enough sources. Even though I know it's important to make sure that everything on Wikipedia can be checked and is backed up by reliable sources, I think it's too soon to delete this article and may even be counterproductive.

it is important to consider the potential value of the article to Wikipedia readers. If the article's topic is interesting and important to the Wikipedia community as a whole, having a well-written, informative article may be helpful even if it doesn't havem any sources yet. In these situations, it might be better to mark the article with a "citation needed" template or work to improve it by adding more sources than to delete it.

I urge you to carefully consider these points before taking any action to delete the article in question. Thank you for your time and consideration. Vb123123 (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing time to work on this article. I have removed the content that lacked a credible source and replaced it with content (Newsweek Ranking for Best Online Shops 2021) the source has also been included. I have also updated the page with other useful content (community initiatives and the Nigerian scam incident) that was covered by CBSNEWS and CNN with sources). Once again, I urge you to please consider this submission, as this article maybe informative and helpful to Wikipedia users. Thank You Vb123123 (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or draftify if Vb123123 wants) - Unfortunately, none of the added sources contribute towards WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. The best is the CNN Business article, but it doesn't really go into the kind of detail that WP:NCORP requires. Suriname0 (talk) 22:35, 2 March 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!} 07:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faisalabad Grammar School[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage, fails WP:SIGCOV. BookishReader (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 08:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable. --Bduke (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Colaco School[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 08:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable. --Bduke (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. $Salvio giuliano$ 06:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salamat School System[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable private school business, fails WP:NCORP. BookishReader (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the generic name does not make searching easy, but I can see no indication that this company passes WP:NCORP. The only coverage available from a search was directory listings and primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 08:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - basically zero coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 06:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mara Rudman[edit]

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

Not notable. No substantial independent coverage. This article was rejected three times by AfC and the draft was deleted after six months.[17] A new page was created by a COI author without going through AfC. BruceThomson (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Law. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have not yet formulated an opinion on her notability, but I just want to pre-empt the possibility that someone will claims notability through WP:PROF#C8 and "She was an editor-in-chief of Harvard Law School's Human Rights Journal". This is a student-run journal, not the sort of journal whose editor-in-chief position is given to an established academic in recognition of their leadership in its field. So it does not pass #C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No notability at all, under any criteria. The article merely establishes that Mara Rudman exists, nothing more. Jeppiz (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. $Salvio giuliano$ 06:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar School System[edit]

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

Non-notable private school business, fails WP:NCORP. BookishReader (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article looks overly promotional with descriptions of non notable people. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Public Schools & Colleges Jutial Gilgit[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage, mostly original research, fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL, only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pass WP:NSCHOOL, Good article as there are not enough articles for schools in Gilgit. --IrfanYashkun (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does it meet WP:NSCHOOL? There is no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:58, 25 February 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!} 05:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet College Murree[edit]

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

Non-notable local military style school without any significant coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. BookishReader (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIRS. That a crime occurred and articles mention school does not make the school notable. Rhadow (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Confused closure, the nomination has been withdrawn and article has already been moved to Draft space. I see no use in moving the article back to main space when there have been no editors advocating Delete so consider this a Procedural close. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Vasinova[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable, does not meet ACTOR or GNG. Has only had bit parts in movies and TV. Some coverage about her relationship with Robert Herjavec from Shark Tank, but it's all gossip-style coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b Please see my withdraw request below. Naomijeans (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW REQUEST - I am the creator of the article and have moved it to the draft because I was actually not done with it. You nominated this within 42 minutes of creation. You should probably give new articles a little more time. I have around 9 more citation that I have found, including one that is only available in Newspapers.com and very solid citation. Based on what I have she would meet WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. She is also a model. so qualification should not only be based on WP:ACTOR.

It would be premature for anyone to vote and make a decision in an incomplete article. I will have a new version within a week. Naomijeans (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to withdraw the request to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 24 February 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 this article and move the ghost town to this title, which I will do on closure. @BruceThomson: if you want the history for the creation of the Station article, happy to provide. Just let me know Star Mississippi 02:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kearsarge, California[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This came to my attention due to a recent talk page discussion, but looking back at the article, the previous discussion's "merge" outcome was not carried out, and the only significant change was to incorporate some of the material I found. That's fine on one level since the two places are completely separate, but the presenting problem from the first discussion remains: this was an isolated railroad station/water stop, not a settlement. I would be OK with moving the ghost twon here and adding a brief note about this place— as it actually was, and not a GNIS-dumped false pop. place/settlement. But as it stands, we have consistently deleted these stations-without-towns. Mangoe (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since there was already consensus on the merge last time, you can do it yourself as described at WP:PROMERGE. You don't have to go through AfD. If you agree you can just withdraw your AfD nomination (see WP:WDAFD). BruceThomson (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I can do what I propose myself, because I don't think I can do all the rearranging required. At any rate the original consensus was in error, as we normally would not merge two different places into a single article. Mangoe (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So are you proposing a delete? Or are you proposing that we move the ghost town here and adding a note? BruceThomson (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Kearsarge (ghost town), California here. Since these appear to be different places a merge isn't appropriate unless someone can do the necessary research to find out how they relate to each other. However it is unacceptable to actively mislead the reader into thinking there is a settlement here when we have no good evidence of that. Hut 8.5 12:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is it another ghost town, or was this never a populated place? I was struggling to find citations. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Kearsarge (ghost town), California here. It might be possible to create an article called Kearsarge Station[18] but that's beyond the scope of this AfD. BruceThomson (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kearsarge (ghost town), California, as the most probable destination. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:17, 25 February 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!} 05:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Films[edit]

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

The article lacks sufficient references to meet WP:ORG . The references currently provided are mainly routine announcements regarding the company's future or past productions. Akevsharma (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Kerala. Akevsharma (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Directory of films produced by the company. Nothing at all in reliable sources, fails WP:ORGCRITE and WP:ORGDEPTH. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 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 Given the uncertainty around the sole source and the lack of further input.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. However if you think you can improve this in draft space, @CT55555:, just let me know. Happy to provide it Star Mississippi 03:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Mahood[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOL as an unsuccessful political candidate. I searched gnews and Australian search engine Trove and could not find significant coverage. Simply being a mayor is not enough to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain keep. I am not certain if WP:ANYBIO C3 is met. She has an entry in the Australian Women's Register <here> but I don't know if the register meets the WP:ANYBIO definition of a Biographical dictionary. I vote keep on assumption it is, but if it doesn't, I'll need to look into this more. CT55555(talk) 07:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines set out by WP:NPOL and I don't think the register mentioned by @CT55555 meets reqs of WP:ANYBIO LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 23 February 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. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Joseph Von Nukem[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRIMINAL and WP:ANYBIO. The article is basically centered around his generic white extremist activities, drug offences and some role at the 2017 Unite the Right rally - a media circus. All this applies to many other freak persons in the US and worldwide. WP:NOTNEWS as well. Brandmeister^talk 22:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the person who started the article. The subject of the article satisfies WP:GNG due to the multiple independent sources of significant coverage in reliable sources. Not only that, but the news coverage on him occurred in both 2017 and is ongoing in 2023. The article is well sourced, but for the avoidance of doubt:

He has been noted for multiple things (drug smuggling in 2021, protesting in 2017, assaulting someone in 2017, changing his name in 2012, his death in 2023) in multiple countries (USA, UK, Mexico, Portugal) over multiple years. The coverage has been sustained. The Washington Post published a long piece about him today. To say he is notable is an understatement. CT55555(talk) 23:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As above, all sources in the article look more like WP:RECENTist media circus without lasting impact. There are literally thousands non-notable people that did what he did: smuggled drugs, protested, assaulted someone and changed their name. There's no indication of something outstanding. Brandmeister^talk 23:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of three of the sources above being from 2017, your comments are truly difficult to understand. Either way, WP:RECENT is an essay that guides away from skewing article content towards more recent events. WP:GNG is what matters here. CT55555(talk) 23:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those 2017 sources do not reveal anything special either, instead they just regurgitate the fascination by his viral photo, some petty crime activity and Duke Nukem resemblance. Will he be covered by reliable sources in two years, let alone ten or more? Hardly. But Duke Nukem brings some nostalgia, I admit... Brandmeister^talk 23:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could speculate about his future newsworthiness. Fortunatly, once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage (from WP:NOTTEMPORARY).

The 2017 sources are about him. That constitutes significant coverage. We're on the edge of both bludgeoning this conversation at this point, so let's agree to disagree and let others opine please. CT55555(talk) 00:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are more than adequate to meet the standard of notability. Jmbranum (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets notability. No doubts. Nanash (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep this article - as is looking exceedingly likely - it should be renamed "Ted von Nukem", because that's apparently how he was most often referred to prior to his death. DS (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this. I see reliable sources being inconsistent on this. Teddy Joseph Von Nukem was the most common usage I could find when I started this one. As of right now, it seems to be a mix of Teddy Von Nukem and Ted Von Nukem (both link through), I've not seen any with a lowercase V, so I assume that is an error. I suggest we discuss this on the talk page of the article. CT55555(talk) 04:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, covered in depth by multiple sources and as User:LizardJr8 mentioned it meets WP:GNG. Sahaib (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The use of emotive language like 'freak' in the proposal doesn't really get away from the fact this person, unpleasant though he was - he would certainly have hated me! - meets GNG. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GenevieveDEon sums it up clearly: yes, he was an unpleasant person, but notable nonetheless. Athel cb (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources in the article indicate passing of GNG. Tails Wx 13:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close per all above. Cheers. Wime Pocy 13:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Got photographed at a far-right rally; got arrested for drug smuggling; died. Doesn't sound too notable to me. Apart from the first one, news reporting is routine, which means the first is effectively BLP1E. Black Kite (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Partially per Black Kite. I'll concede that he easily meets WP:GNG, but that isn't the only thing to consider. Of course the exact meaning of "one event" is somewhat inconsistent everywhere it is cited in policies and guidelines, but between WP:BIO1E, WP:BLP1E (questionable since the subject is deceased, but useful for defining one event) and WP:EVENT#People notable for only one event, the major test seems to be "in the context of" or "in connection with" a single event as well as looking at how significant their role was in said event. Every source I've seen identifies him as the person in that photo, and doesn't give any other reason why they are reporting otherwise-unimportant details about him such as drug arrests or his death. Additionally, his role in the Unite the Right rally is based entirely on being present and making a strange face while being photographed. That seems like the very definition of an insignificant role in an otherwise-notable event. Contrast this with someone like Kyle Rittenhouse, who's role in that shooting was (obviously) significant and who has received significant coverage for making public speeches/political rallies, having legislation named after him, and other independent events. If there is any content worth using for Unite the Right rally or related articles, I wouldn't be opposed to merge and redirect as an alternative. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets GNG. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRIMINAL, which has more stringent requirements than just meeting GNG. Meeting GNG is not enough here, and the whole reason for CRIMINAL existing is cases just like this, where a subject can meet GNG based largely on local crime reporting. Levivich (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He's mostly noted for (legally) protesting, rather than his drug-related (criminal) activities. Further to that, his drug-related activities are very separate from his protesting/activism/views. CT55555(talk) 00:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the characterization of the violent, white supremacist Unite the Right rally rally as "protesting/activism/views". Levivich (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume we both hate the event to a similar degree. I don't like this guy. But he is not noted for his crimes, he is noted for being the face of the event. Protesting is legal in the US. The criminal aspect of his biography is completely unconnected and is about drug smuggling. The crime aspects are detached from the white supremacy rally. Or if you really don't agree with that, you'd then have to agree that he is noted for multiple and separate criminal things (what ever crime you think the rally is, and international drug smuggling) which really does cement my notability claim, I think. CT55555(talk) 15:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is noted for two criminal things, neither of which meet WP:CRIMINAL. Levivich (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be ok with a redirect as ATD, per the first sentence of CRIMINAL. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. I think the participation in Charlottesville and the subsequent arrest/suicide several years afterwards are two distinct events for the purposes of the 1E tests. WP:CRIMINAL does not apply here because that is for people whose notability only derives from (alleged) criminal activity. His actions at Charlottesville are, as far as we know, reprehensible but not illegal. The Unite the Right rally page is already near the "almost certainly" splitting threshold per WP:TOOBIG, so it is fair to have this split off, though as an WP:ATD, I personally think merging it with Peter Cvjetanovic and focusing/renaming? on the photo would be best. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Keep votes are rather aggressively ignoring the point of WP:BIO. GNG establishes a standard of notability based on a level of coverage in reliable sources. WP:BIO (and WP:CRIMINAL specifically) derives from the understanding that applying GNG to certain classes of BLPs would result in inclusion of very trivial persons due to the way these classes are covered in the media. This person's notoriety is entirely derived from him making an odd face in a picture at a rally. That's why RS talked about him, that's why WP has an article. He is unquestionably not notable in the plain sense, and a lucid reading of GNG and BIO make it clear that we are not supposed to have an article for him. "Well technically the rally wasn't a crime" misses the point that the coverage treated it like a crime, and elevated this person in the way it elevates criminals by focusing on the salacious. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple of quick points: He is the one on the left in the photo, I'd describe his facial expression as fairly normal. He is not famous for making an odd expression. Even if he was only famous for being in a photo, people can be famous for being in photos that end up representing events (e.g. 1, 2, 3). I know that's a bit WP:OTHERSTUFF...

The triviality or lack thereof is the key thing. WP:GNG is our guide. I can only speak for myself, but I'm not ignoring WP:BIO or WP:CRIMINAL, I'm just disagreeing. I hope you didn't sense any aggression in my tone or words. If anyone does, none is intended.

I will try to be brief, WP:BLUDGEON is on my mind. I think this passes WP:GNG clearly, and I think we need to avoid the potential error of making a judgement about if he should be notable, and instead !vote based on if he is notable. Even if protesting was criminal, he would still be notable. I'm straying towards the arguments to avoid again, but we have biographies or criminals, if they are notable. The criminality or legality is a distraction from WP:GNG in my opinion. CT55555(talk) 19:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to your comments here or elsewhere, I just disagree. I'm honestly a bit disconcerted at the number of votes that are specifically citing GNG when BIO should be the policy at mind. There is an overarching spirit to WP GLs that we shouldn't be so literal in reading policy. Coverage in reliable sources is a good indicator of notability, but a person is not notable BECAUSE they are covered in reliable sources. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively (a single paragraph covering Nukem and Cvjetanovic, who is oddly missing as the focus of the photo) and Redirect to Unite the Right rally#Protesters per WP:CRIMINAL and WP:NOPAGE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Unite the Right rally per WP:NOPAGE. He doesn't have any notability outside of that one event. The drug arrest is routine.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Famous for being an odd duck I suppose. There's coverage of what he did at the rally and what happened after. It's not terribly notable, but he's met GNG at least. So long as the article is NPOV, which it seems to be, it's fine for wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 04:48, 23 February 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 issue identified here is a lack of significant RS coverage of the subject himself. Unfortunately efforts to clean up this article have been unsuccessful in swaying consensus towards keeping it. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Johanson (author)[edit]

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

Non-notable children's author. The cited sources establish the existence of his three books, but there's no substantive analysis of their significance, and nothing secondary about him. There's only his capsule bio on his publisher's website and one amateur review in a self-published blog. Tagged for notability since it was created a year ago. Searches of the usual types found no independent, reliable sources that would satisfy WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bangladesh, and Sweden. Worldbruce (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-known author in Sweden. Valiaveetil (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A search in w:sv:Mediearkivet finds better sources than the ones in the article. He's definitely mentioned, sometimes as the author of the recommended book of the month or something similar; his work is being discussed, positively and negatively. On Swedish Wikipedia I'd say there's enough to prove notability; this is not just some vanity article by a less successful self-published writer no one has ever heard of. After a brief glance, I'm not sure I've found anything truly in-depth focusing on him personally in accordance with the English Wikipedia guidelines, though. /Julle (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 21:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There seems to be enough to at least satisy the minimum notability criteria. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you specify which criterion is met, and which sources meet it? --Worldbruce (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources, and very badly written or translated. Possibly spam, and if so, subjct to permanent deletion. In 2023, everyone knows we are Not a free web host for self-published authors, but rather a private charity. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian: Johanson is not a self-published author. He's the author of several titles published by Rabén & Sjögren, the biggest and most respected publishing house for children's literature in Sweden. In English, he's published by the children's literature imprint of Nobrow Press, which distributes its books through Penguin Random House in the US. Looking at the contributions of the editor who created the article, I see no reason to suspect it's anything but the efforts of a new editor. /Julle (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be wonderful if the current article reflected that. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Rabén & Sjögren's presentation of Johanson (including a list of 12 published titles) that could be used as a source. /FredrikT (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I made some improvements, including adding three independent reviews of his book All Kinds of Cars. I'm taking my guidance from WP:AUTHOR criteria 3, but more the spirit of it than the letter. It's up for debate. Is this children's book "significant"? Well, it was translated, it make the New York Times, I think that's very uncommon for children's books, so that's why I say keep. Only one notable book, the depth and source of the other two reviews isn't fantastic, hence the "weak". I've improved the article since it was last commented on, but this is very far from WP:HEY territory. CT55555(talk) 01:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translation isn't mentioned in our notability criteria anywhere as far as I'm aware, but I agree, that's certainly evidence of a book's notability. -- asilvering (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an article about a living person, yet there is not a single independent reliable source applied which directly details the subject, only the work. I appreciate the good faith effort made by CT55555 to improve the page; the book reviews may be enough for the book's notability. As a BLP, this entire article content is controversial and any of it could be deleted in good faith by any editor. BusterD (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & User:BusterD. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josefa Masegosa Gallego[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a scientist, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for scientists. This is a one-sentence article of the "she is a person who exists, the end" variety without actually detailing anything about her career that could be measured against the inclusion criteria for scientists at all, which is not enough in and of itself -- and it's referenced solely to a single 172-word blurb in a "ten local women of distinction" listicle in the local newspaper of the big city close to her hometown, which is not enough coverage to claim that she would pass WP:GNG. And while there is an article about her on the Spanish Wikipedia, it's referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources and pages not found rather than GNG-building reliable sources, so there are no legitimate new sources there that can simply be pulled over here either.
As I don't have access to the resources needed to dig into Spanish-language sourcing, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with more Spanish language skills than I've got can find sufficient coverage to expand and improve the article with -- but just single-sourcing the fact that she exists isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, and Spain. Bearcat (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's been improved since the nomination and we should !vote not based on how the article was, but what sources exist. My searches find at least three suggesting local notability and awards. It's local only, hence the "weak"

https://www.lavozdealmeria.com/noticia/12/almeria/186055/josefa-masegosa-mujer-de-las-galaxias

https://www.granadahoy.com/vivir/galardon-labor-BcientificaB_0_1254775017.html

https://www.lavozdealmeria.com/noticia/12/almeria/233137/ocho-mujeres-que-abren-puertas-y-rompen-techos-de-cristal CT55555(talk) 14:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searching Google Scholar for author:Josefa-Masegosa finds citation counts 275, 168, 156, 153, 122, 102, 101, possibly enough for a case for WP:PROF#C1 although the case is less strong than it might appear just from the numbers because these are multi-author papers and she's not first. I think the better case is through WP:GNG and the nontrivial coverage of her in La Voz de Almería [19] (three-paragraph section of a longer article) and Mujeres con ciencia [20] (similar length standalone web page in a larger web site). The nomination makes much of the statement that the article was only one sentence long at the time of nomination (it has been expanded since) but that is an extremely poor rationale for a deletion nomination, having nothing to do with the inherent notability of the subject, especially as its shortness was entirely because it was a brand-new article. Notability does not go away merely because you think the article should be expanded but lack the language skills to do it yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- PS the links by CT55555 above add to notability in the same way, and here's another from Europa Press: [21]. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is also not automatically presumed for every article that anybody deigns to create. While an article obviously doesn't have to already be FA-class quality right off the bat, it is still fundamentally the job of the article's creator to make sure that the article actually contains a basic notability claim, and some proper reliable sourcing for it, right off the bat, and not anybody else's job to leave an article that has neither of those things unquestioned just because future improvement is theoretically possible — anybody can say that future improvement is theoretically possible about absolutely anything and anybody, so even outright hoaxes would no longer be deletable from Wikipedia at all if musing about theoretical future expansion were all it took to exempt creators from having to actually include a basic notability claim in the article from the get-go. So the onus is on the creator to make sure they at least write and source enough about the person to demonstrate that she has a valid notability claim in the first place, not on me to guess at things the article doesn't say — especially after I do check the Spanish article and it doesn't contain any better sourcing, or say anything "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have any better sourcing, either, which means I did more than enough work to satisfy any reasonable reading of WP:BEFORE. So if you can improve the article with enough better sourcing to make it keepable, then just improve it and don't attack me when I didn't do a damn thing wrong. Even "the article is new" still does not exempt anybody from "the article has to at least state and source a basic notability claim in the first place". Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article had a reference though to an article about how she's a notable woman from that area, "De distintas generaciones y profesionales, diez mujeres que han roto barreras y abierto camino." And that source per La Voz de Almería is a leading regional newspaper. It's better if everything's there all laid out for us, but sometimes it's not. It's just as easy to fix up the article a bit as to nominate it for deletion. Jahaza (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One reference from the local newspaper in a person's own hometown local area is not in and of itself sufficient to demonstrate that the person belongs in an encyclopedia — so there's no reason why any responsible or remotely competent editor would or should ever look at an article that said "subject is a person who exists, the end", referenced that existence solely to one reference from the local newspaper in the subject's own hometown local area, and decide that was enough to forestall a deletion discussion in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "sufficient to demonstrate that the person belongs in an encyclopedia", what policy guideline do you think you are referring to? There is nothing in WP:GNG, for instance, about the locality of coverage, only its depth and reliability (and there is no reason to expect lower reliability for a hometown newspaper). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss improvements made and assess new sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I am not seeing a pass of either NPROF or GNG. Astrophysics is a very high-citation field, so her citation record is not outstanding relative to others. The Mujeres con Ciencia site referenced above is a blog, so cannot be used at all N. The first La Voz article is a pure interview/written by her and so fails independence N. The GH source is a passing mention N. The second La Voz article has two independent sentences and so also fails SIGCOV N. JoelleJay (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newer sources look much closer to meeting GNG. An assessment of their reliability/independence would be beneficial. JoelleJay (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While this AfD has been going on, yet another newspaper story on her has appeared in another paper: Acedo del Olmo Ordóñez, Antonio R. (11 February 2023). "La investigadora científica Josefa Masegosa (11-F: Mujer y Ciencia)". Diario Ronda. And another older in-depth source, of unclear reliability: "La astrofisica almeriense, Pepa Masegosa, premiada en Granada". Disfruta de Almería. 15 June 2018. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to further discuss sources newly presented
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions on sources are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. For the record, this is the version nominated in the procedure. User:Bearcat has been criticized unjustly above, though choosing merely to draftify this page might have been simpler. While a reasonable WP:BEFORE is expected of the nominator (and was performed in this case), the ONUS of sourcing is on the page creator SikiWtideI, who should be building articles longer than a single sentence before putting them in mainspace. Reading User talk:SikiWtideI reveals a number of recent cases in which the user started an article which would not have passed AfC and was draftified. I'm happy the article looks good now and appreciate the good faith sourcing applied. But lay off Bearcat, who has done exactly nothing improper here. BusterD (talk) 06:42, 25 February 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. This is a complex decision and while, calendar wise, we're as far from the anniversary as we can be, the difference between this list and that of Vietnam, Gettysburg, et al is that for many of us, we lived 9/11 while the others are history, although I acknowledge Vietnam as some editors' lived experience. My editorializing aside, the consensus here appears split, however when you look at the reasoning - you see where the deletes edge out. These responders made the news for their actions, but they were otherwise generally not notable-Mychal Judge etc. aside. Those who were notable have articles. Are the first responders and their work worth noting-yes. And they are, but that does not necessitate a list of these people per policy & guidelines. Star Mississippi 03:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks[edit]

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

This is an emotive subject and I fear this nomination may be controversial but my intent is not to stir emotions. Essentially, this article violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL (a policy) and WP:SALAT (a guideline). It largely consists of long lists of non-notable people. There is little discussion of these individuals in reliable sources, as exemplified by the sources cited in this article which are almost exclusively primary sources (published by the organisations the people belonged to) and tribute sites which have unclear editorial standards. There is coverage of firefighter casualties and one could certainly write an article about firefighter casualties on 9/11 and/or the emergency response to the WTC but extensive lists of casualties like this are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the people listed don't have articles, so aren't notable. Could perhaps merge parts confirming from where they worked (which firehouse) to another article, but we don't need a list with names for everyone who passed away. This was almost 25 years ago now, if those listed haven't made notability here on wiki by now, they likely won't. A list is fine if it points to other articles; simply listing the names of everyone doesn't add much value to the encyclopedia. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Police, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The statistics belong in Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#Fatalities, and the names and companies are already in List of victims of the September 11 attacks (A–G) etc. Reywas92^Talk 19:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These arguments are based on a misunderstanding of the Wikipedia policies. WP:NOTMEMORIAL says that subjects of articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements, but this is a list article, not an article about the people. The relevant policy is WP:NOTEWORTHY, which says that notability guidelines don't apply to content within lists. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't just a list, it has prose as well; this is an article with a chart. NOTMEMORIAL still applies. Oaktree b (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article title starts with "List of", so the consensus is that it's a list, but that doesn't actually matter for this particular argument. WP:NOTEWORTHY applies in either case. The full text is The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTEWORTHY is a guideline, not a policy but it's not relevant here. That's about deciding what to include in an article or list, not about whether it belongs on Wikipedia. I'm arguing that emergency workers as individuals or a group are not the subject of discussion in reliable sources (WP:SALAT, guideline) but rather a long list of non-notable names (WP:INDIDSCRIMINATE, policy) which serves purely to memorialise them (NOTMEMORIAL, policy). As I said in my nomination, there is scope for a prose article on firefighters at the WTC or the emergency response to 9/11, which would be a more encyclopaedic way of covering the subject. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So barring a few details we don't disagree on the policies/guidelines. I am arguing that the emergency workers as a group are the subject of discussion in reliable sources. It's also worth noting that the article isn't just list of names; it includes ranks and units for the workers, which is encyclopedic information. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not encyclopaedic for >400 people, almost none of whom are sufficiently notable for their own article and who are only covered because of their involvement (and tragic death) in a single event. I can't find any lists of casualties or emergency responders from any other terrorist attack or natural disaster; I appreciate that 9/11 is on a different scale, as is the incredible bravery of the emergency responders, but that's where NOTMEMORIAL comes in. You haven't provided any sources to support your suggestion that the emergency workers are the subject of discussion, and the sources in the article support my opinion that we should have a prose article about emergency worker casualties rather than a list of names. Of the sources in the article that are reliable and independent (which is maybe five from what I can see), none include a list of names. In fact, the names are almost exclusively unsourced or sourced to primary sources or what look like blogs/hobby sites or the occasional primary source. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there discussion of emergency workers as a group? I'm looking at Google searches for "9/11" OR "september 11" "rescue workers" OR "first responders"[22] and find what I would consider significant, if not overwhelming, discussion. Those results are weighted toward articles about long term health effects because Google prefers recent articles to older articles, so a probably better list can be seen by restricting results to the first five years after 9/11[23] Dan Bloch (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Dan Bloch. Until examing the article in depth, I was not convinced. Do consider a rename, if feasible. gidonb (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: I normally just say my piece in an AfD then back off so pardon me for badgering but you don't seem to have addressed any of the policy concerns, nor the concerns about a list that cites no reliable sources for its entries. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the sources in the article are sufficient for WP:NLIST, which would cancel WP:NOTMEMORIAL as a consideration per the same POLICY. As implied in my opinion, I am still looking if there is an even better solution than keep. Give it some time. gidonb (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, also an alternative to keep. This would be merge with List of emergency and first responder agencies that responded to the September 11 attacks into a new article Emergency and first response to the September 11 attacks, that would contain a list of casualties. It may be beyond the scope of this AfD and something to discuss later if there is interest at all. For this AfD, I will remain at keep. gidonb (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't have a list of every casualty in a war, this would seem to be the same idea. The first responders are amply covered in the various articles on 9/11, I can't see how knowing the names of each and every person adds to the overall discussion. This was 20 years ago and as we move forward in time, simply remembering the event as a whole should suffice. I don't see GNG being met for each and every person, nor for the list as a whole. I don't think we need such granular details at this point in time; if the name on the list doesn't point to an article about the person in wiki, this is simply a memorial. Some are more notable, some are not. I see this as individual soldiers in World War 2; we don't have details for every participant involved, only those that have some sort of notability. These people were simply doing their jobs and one is interchangeable with another in the list at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think there is going to be an almighty fight if we try to start deleting names of the dead (and there are many lists of names just from this event, see [24]) or we say that new similar lists pages cannot be written as they are not notable. I don't personally think that fight is worth having for the sake of a small number of kB it would save. And if it really is, there must be a better venue for it than a AfD discussion. JMWt (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let them fit, we aren't here to play favorites. We either stand by our notability guidelines or we don't, this isn't a feel-good exercise. Facts are facts: people responded, people died in the accident, others didn't. We aren't here to judge. NOTMEMORIAL and GNG tell us we only present the facts or discuss what others have said in reliable sources. As tragic as the event was, we're almost a generation removed from it and have to be objective. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an opinion. Personally I can't see it is worth it. JMWt (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think WP:NOTMEMORIAL supports keeping this. I quote it Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.. This isn't an article made by someone trying to make a memorial for their family or friends. The relevant notability requirements here is WP:NLIST which can be satisfied if the subject has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. The sources in the article, I think do. I think people could say that there is a lack of independence, often the employers of the deceased have published the sources, but I think to focus on that to miss the point of independence requirements, there is no PR or promotion occurring when these lists have been published. I think this is a notable topic, actually a very notable topic, that has been dealt with collectively as a list, that is not precluded by WP:NOTMEMORIAL and is supported by WP:NLIST CT55555(talk) 04:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think WP:LISTPEOPLE is satisfied, per the exemption. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the way this is heading, even if I think we're selectively picking our policies and guidelines, but can you explain how point two of LISTPEOPLE (The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources) is satisfied please? The are very few reliable sources cited for the names, and none that I can see that exhaustively list every emergency responder killed on 9/11. There are oodles of sources about the emergency response in general and firefighter casualties as a group, and those subjects would be very encyclopaedic, but there aren't for the names. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the sources and added a more reliable one listing the firefighters, which was the only group without a reliable source. The section Fatalities by fire company has no reliable sources and I think it would be reasonable to remove this. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You did a good job tidying it up but there are still no reliable sources cited for the fatalities. They're all primary sources, or memorial sites like "Officer Down Memorial Page" or "the unofficial landing page of the FDNY". There are still no reliable sources for most of the names, never mind any reliable sources that exhaustively list all emergency worker fatalities. We allow some limited use primary sources in an encyclopaedia but considering 9/11 is probably the most written-about news event in history, we need to ask ourselves if Wikipedia is the place for information that no reliable, secondary publication has covered. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated it with the reliable source that the "unofficial landing page" was taken from. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like the nominator I understand how emotional this is, especially for editors in the US. But it's a list of non-notable people. We could literally make up names and it would be just as useful to the average reader. For me that's basically the definition of notmemorial: if there isn't anything to link to, how does it matter whether we list Thomas O'Hagan or John Doe#322? In 100 years this will be literally exactly like those war memorials from the Civil War that list every local soldier who died. No one will get any value from it except the soldiers' great-great-grandkids, who can point out the name to their own kids. It's a memorial. Valereee (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to article topics, not to article or list contents. Per WP:NLIST, lists of non-notable people can be notable as a group. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But these aren't. There is still no reliable source for an exhaustive list. The overwhelming majority of it is based on primary sources. It's natural that the organisations these people belonged to would want to honour them, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Which is why we don't have lists like for any other mass-casualty event. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it's a misinterpretation of that policy to say that names of non-notable individuals need to be included. Are they notable as a group? Absolutely. Their individual names add nothing for readers, any more than the names of all the Rana Plaza collapse victims would add anything for readers. Valereee (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A disclosure: I didn't live in NYC in 2001, but I do now, and that can't help but affect my !vote. You don't see them in the movies/tv set here, but 9/11 memorials are ubiquitous here. Some of them are big murals or statues and easy to see, while others are little signs, plaques, words painted on a wall, mementos, or portraits of people who died. They're often on/in firehouses and police stations, and often highlighting emergency workers. Most of the people who lived here then, even if they didn't know anyone who died, still get emotional when thinking about the people who died trying to help their fellow New Yorkers that day. The feeling of gratitude towards the FDNY from that day is still there. To be clear, I'm not saying we should keep this because it's still important to NYC. I'm not just going for pathos. Just searching for some of these names in a single Google search returns international coverage of the firefighters who died that day, even though back in 2001 so much of the coverage wasn't online. The page has received almost 12,000 pageviews just last month. Clearly, this organizational scheme is what some people are looking for. Whether we consider it a matter of WP:LISTN or just information that's too large to be included in the main casualties article (i.e. spun out of a larger topic rather than a list with stand-alone notability), my [inescapably biased] !vote is to keep. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: That sounds like an excellent argument for an article on the emergency response, or an article about the role of the FDNY that day, or even a prose article about emergency worker casualties. It absolutely merits coverage in some form. I would be happy to help you write such an article. *I* get emotional thinking about the heroism of the firefighters; I've only visited NYC once, around a decade ago, and the site of the twin towers (then just a building site) was the first thing I wanted to see. But Wikipedia covers that which is covered in reliable sources, not that which its editors thinks is important or should be covered, and as far as I can see there are no reliable sources that cover the subject by giving an exhaustive list of names. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't list all names on the Viet Nam memorial, do we? Or everybody who was killed at Gettysburg, or in the recent Turkey/Syria earthquake. We don't list all those murdered by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia or during the Rwandan genocide. All horrible events. All people that deserve memorials. But not here... --Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Valereee, and Randykitty. If there are no sources covering this, there shouldn't be an article. --bonadea contributions talk 20:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea: I'm not sure what you meant by "no sources covering this", but it's not true. I just removed the one unsourced section, so it's all sourced now. @HJ Mitchell:, if you're saying that there should be a single source containing all the names, this isn't a Wikipedia requirement. Consider for example List of people who have declined a British honour. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not all sourced (even discounting the section you removed, which was restored by an IP user with no explanation or comment). Under "New York Fire Department", there is a list of names by company, rank, name, and age (if available) sourced to this and this. The first one is primary, the second one secondary; the list of names in the list article appears to be a synthesis of both sources (and neither one mentions any ages, so it's anyone's guess where that info comes from). Original research + unsourced, and non-notable individuals. A little further down, under "Private emergency medical services", is a list of names with comments / descriptions, some but not all of which is found in the source – and the source does not support almost any of the introductory text. The "Port Authority Police Department" source (which is primary) mentions no ages. The "New York City Police Department" is almost entirely sourced to one of a couple of primary sources. Etc. A crucial difference between this list article and List of people who have declined a British honour is that the latter list consists overwhelmingly of notable individuals and this one doesn't – and the British honours list article does in fact specify which secondary sources it is based on. You're right that there doesn't necessarily have to be one single list with all names, but we really do need the sources to be secondary. --bonadea contributions talk 12:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, there doesn't necessarily need to be one source that gives an exhaustive list (though it says something that there are none), but WP:LISTPEOPLE requires that "the person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources" and the vast majority of the entries are sourced only to primary sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bonadea, I've removed that section again and added a source for people's ages. The fire department section is now completely sourced. The list of names should be identical in the two sources, but in any case combining two lists is not synthesis in the Wikipedia sense, which is explicitly to "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source".

I've removed the unsourced introductory text from "Private emergency medical services". I've added a source (same source as for FDNY) for the "Port Authority Police Department" victims' ages.

HJ Mitchell, as of the addition of the New York Times source for the FDNY, the vast majority of the names are sourced to reliable secondary sources.

I agree that some of the sources in the article could be better, but the remedy for this is ^{[better source needed]}; it isn't a reason to delete the article. At the end of the day, we're back where we started. The issue is whether or not this list of people (or their deaths) is notable as a group, which I still think it is. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, this should be deleted, but the driving problem is that the alphabetic breakout of the overall list is a bad idea. It makes much more sense to break the list out by the "where" column, which would make a much more manageable set of lists. And it that case it would make sense to divide up the "WTC" entries by emergency and others. Mangoe (talk) 03:23, 23 February 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.