< December 31	January 02 >

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 (with a small dose of WP:SNOW). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parnassus Partners, LP[edit]

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

Unable to find *any* sources about this firm. Failed CSD. Sole author appears to confuse this firm with another firm named Parnassus Investments. Toddst1 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also could not locate any reliable source showing that this company even exists. The best I found is a Crunchbase entry which suggests the company might actually be named "P-Parters", but I can't find any RS under that name either. Jfire (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and California. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No good sources found from my search. Not notable. Carpimaps (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very poorly sourced. Doesn't even name the key personnel making it harder to positively differentiate it from other namesake companies. I couldn't find any significant coverage. At least not in the English language side. Graywalls (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. I'm unable to locate any sources that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't even confirm that the company exists. "Parnassus Investments" is a real, long-established San Fran investment firm, and quite a few of the searches that come up are referring to Parnassus Investments, not Parnassus Partners: e.g. "Parnassus partners with AMG" is referring to Parnassus Investments' acquisition by Affiliated Managers Group. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Lacks enough sources. Alex-h (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe it fails WP:NCORP. Tried various search engines, could not find company. Equine-man (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH Devoke water 22:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search for sources turned up no significant coverage, and this therefore fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board#Kanata. There is rough consensus for a redirect, with no editors in favor of retaining the article as-is. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

W. Erskine Johnston Public School[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NSCHOOl. On the Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable, it states that a elementary school needs to be notable, or have a notable event to stay or become a article. This one is clearly not notable, its just a regular public elementary school. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see any indication this school could meet WP:NSCHOOL. Jfire (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board#Kanata, where it mentions here, deleting the page will not work, but a redirect will be work as per the WP:ATD. --2600:1700:9BF3:220:B9E1:5B8:C232:4F52 (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~:* Redirect as per above HeliosSunGod (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)~~ Sockpuppet, blocked act.[reply]

Redirect to List of schools of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board#Kanata, perATD and the long precedent described at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 66.232.69.166 (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board#Kanata. The school itself does not appear to be notable; it's a primary school that doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Outright deletion seems unwarranted given the existence of a list of schools in the district, and redirecting this page to there makes more sense. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:38, 7 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 7454[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NASTRO. All coverage appears to be in comprehensive sources, databases, or passing mentions in the literature, with nothing dedicated specifically to this galaxy. ^Complex/_Rational 17:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ^Complex/_Rational 17:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This galaxy was discovered in 1784 so it seems it does meet WP:NASTRO #4.[1] Thincat (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch; I missed that part. I still have concerns about the apparent dearth of sources, though I could see this being redirected or left as a WP:PERMASTUB if a pre-1850 discovery is sufficient by itself. ^Complex/_Rational 19:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: While I didn't find any dedicated studies, it has been the target of a number of amateur observations and has entries in a pair of observer catalogues. I added some data with references and links to the other language wikipedias. Praemonitus (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I agree with some of the nominator's concerns, though as WP:NASTRO criteria 4 states that The object was discovered before 1850, prior to the use of astrophotography or automated technology I am at weak keep. There appears to be a few Google Scholar articles based on a preview version, 1, 2, 3, though I'm unsure whether these are trivial mentions or sources that could be useful towards expanding this stub. VickKiang (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Praemonitus and VickKiang. Double sharp (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NASTRO#4, articles who subjects are astronomical objects discovered before 1850 are presumed notable. Per WP:N, an article subject is presumed notable if it meets either the general notability guideline... or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (emphasis mine), provided that the subject is not excluded by WP:NOT. I see no WP:NOT-based reason to delete the article, and the article subject clearly passes WP:NASTRO, so it should be kept. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:57, 8 January 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) 22:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Licari[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Disputed draftification. Immediate move to mainspace after being draftified. Fails WP:BIO. References mainly fail WP:RS. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither actors nor film producers are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — the notability test for both occupations hinges less on verifying that he exists, and more on the amount of reliable source coverage about him, in sources independent of himself, that can or cannot be shown to demonstrate that his work has made him a subject of third-party coverage and analysis. But the referencing here is entirely to blogs and primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with absolutely no evidence shown of WP:GNG-building coverage about him in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - since I follow him on social media, I will not !vote, but there seems to be a dearth of reliable sources, despite his name being familiar. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely WP:UPE spam. I've blocked the author for creating this page. MER-C 08:02, 7 January 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 New Zealand national football team. The revision history remains in place if anyone wants to perform a selective merge, as per some of the commentary below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand national football B team[edit]

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

References are highly questionable. If a B Team is notable, then it will have attracted significant coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:GNG failure. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and New Zealand. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Zealand national football team and have a little section there. Giant Snowman 12:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Zealand national football team as per GiantSnowman.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to New Zealand national football team, per above. Alex-h (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to New Zealand national football team. I think that the material in this article can be used as the basis of a small section on the article of the national team. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 20:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kei Nangon[edit]

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

As pointed out on this article's talk page, the only sources that mention this person either refer to other people of the same name or are forks of Wikipedia (see circular sourcing). Therefore the subject of this article is not notable and may even be a hoax. Partofthemachine (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searches found nothing to establish notability. But translation issues may have limited this, so please ping me if anyone finds anything and I will reconsider. CT55555(talk) 14:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:40, 8 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Manski[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This deletion discussion has been started on the request of an unregistered editor at Talk:Ben Manski#Subject lacks notability. I will place my own comments below. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The subject does not pass either WP:PROF or WP:NPOL. As far as the general notability guideline goes I have found plenty of works written by him and interviews with him but have been unable to find enough about him. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, Social science, and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Above comments are an accurate summary of that discussion. Reviewing the previous deletion discussion, it was observed that the subject was interviewed in 2004 by a local paper to represent the Green Party's take on presidential candidate John Kerry (Zaleski, Rob (2004). "Green Leader Has Doubts About Kerry".) That citation is insufficient for notability. There was also concern expressed in that prior debate about bad faith nominations against Green Party members. Reviewing the current discussion, the issues raised are unrelated to party affiliation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6230:1e30:8c2:e407:4908:9ffa (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated above. Subject does not meet notability guidelines and the article is too heavily based on Manski's own work. It reads more like an annotated bibliography of Manski's published writings than an article about Manski himself. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and the other commenters above. A case of WP:REFBOMB. The subject lacks the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources needed to pass the notability threshold. Sal2100 (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROF ,WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:16, 9 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aiyshwarya Mahadev[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL and WP:GNG — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a non-notable typical party functionary. A search only return passing mentions and interviews she's given. Curbon7 (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable politician. ---Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete She is National Office Holder and — Preceding unsigned comment added by BootTPP (talk • contribs) 14:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What national office? Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She is not an elected politician. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG non elected politician.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not an elected politician, fails WP:NPOL. Alex-h (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Holding a bureaucratic role in a political party's internal org chart is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the article neither claims that she's held any elected legislative office nor cites sufficiently solid sourcing to get her over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, especially Bearcat. There are literally hundreds of such party officials. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete there are lots of national and state office bearer Who have Wikipedia but who is not elected like Rukshmani_Kumari etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by BootTPP (talk • contribs) 07:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom etc Devoke water 22:35, 7 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Duckworth[edit]

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

I've edited this deletion proposal as it originally included an unnecessary COI discussion with evidence. I regret this as it doesn't belong here and retrospectively I think this should be removed. Nonetheless for transparency the unedited original is here. I've only edited my own text.

There is a strong argument for WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY in this article. I don't believe that the subject passes WP:NPROF, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG in notability. It's true that the subject is a member of the Society of Antiquaries of London (with societal fellowships usually being an indicator of notability on Wikipedia), but I have problems with this instance. This is discussed below with Russ Woodroofe, and for brevity I won't repeat those arguments about FSAs here. You could argue for a case of being WP:TOOSOON.

The Great British Dig is the only notable media in which the subject has been involved. none of the archaeologists involved have their own articles, except for Duckworth. John Henry Phillips does not. Richard Taylor does not. Natasha Billson does not. A submission was made for Billson which was declined. When you Google the name 'Chloe Duckworth', at least for me, the first result is this very article, the second result is the website of a completely different person, a "student-entrepreneur and sophomore at USC studying computational neuroscience".

I'd argue that in this instance Wikipedia is itself enhancing the subject's notability and esteem with an article. Rather than correct approach of using Wikipedia to reflect notability which already exists.

MemoryForgotten (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Archaeology, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all apologies if this comment is in the wrong place, I haven't done an AFD discussion before. I can confirm that I (Drlmshillito) created this page, my identity on Wikipedia has always been open. I confirm also that I work at the same university as the subject (we are colleagues in the same department), however this is not the reason I created the page and there is no conflict of interest. A check of my history shows clearly that the main thing I do on Wikipedia is create pages for notable female archaeologists and academics. In this case, I created the page as a stub, and the majority of the page was filled out by others. I was suprised by this AFD suggestion as Duckworth is a well known UK TV presenter with a long list of media appearances (including prestigious BBC Expert Women, New Scientist etc), has written a best selling popular book, as well as being a world leading expert in archaeological glass with several authored academic books, is an elected Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, on the editorial board of the international journal World Archaeology etc. They clearly fit the Wikipedia notability criteria for academics. I note that the user who suggested this AFD is a new account that seems to be created solely for this purpose, and the motive is possibly questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlmshillito (talk • contribs) 19:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The created page was not a stub, it contains much of the information that it does now. A significant amount of what has been added was added by ArchaeoAngelGabriel, and I cite WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY on that as above. (Edit: I'll also cite this, the authorship of you and ArchaeoAngelGabriel accounts for 80.2% of the article. Aside from Zakhx150 the others are so insignificant in their edits that the fourth most significant editor of the page is ... me, by flagging it for deletion).

There is a clear conflict of interest and vested interest if you know the person you are writing about, and you state here that you do. That was not declared in the correct manner (eg on the article's talk page), and arguing as you do here that your identity is open does not pass the Wiki guidelines.

It can be seen that the references for the article are largely profile pages. You can draw a comparison with Natasha Billson's more extensive references - nonetheless the submission was declined, because they were almost entirely personal profiles in the same way.

I would argue that your statement that Duckworth is a "well known UK TV presenter with a long list of media appearances" is inaccurate. "Well known" is subjective, I'd argue that her name does not carry much recognisability with the general public, and that the Great British Dig is Duckworth's only media appearance which is actually notable. Again, I'd cite the example of Natasha Billson who has the exact same exposure and notability but had her article declined. The programme itself might be notable but Duckworth herself arguably is not. If you Google the name you might find significant original sources discussing the Great British Dig but not Duckworth individually. You won't find an interview with Duckworth in the Times or the Guardian for instance, even if you might find a review of the show itself. Like I said, potential argument for WP:TOOSOON but I don't think the justification is there yet with only one notable media appearance.

I'd argue though that any biographical details justified by Duckworth's appearance on the Great British Dig could be put on that article itself. In any case I believe the guidelines are clear and I'll very happily leave that to the admins' discretion, whatever their view is. MemoryForgotten (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I know the nominator had good intent, but they should be aware of our WP:OUTING policy. Additionally, whether this is a COI or not has little merit at AfD, where we assess primarily article notability. Any concerns about COIs should thus be handled either at the article talk page or WP:COIN, Curbon7 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, as a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London ([2]), she appears to pass WP:NPROF#C3. Curbon7 (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep that in mind, thank you. MemoryForgotten (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curbon7, fellowship in the Society of Antiquaries of London appears to be somewhat conflated with membership. I am skeptical as to whether this is the kind of fellowship that meets WP:NPROF C3. It otherwise looks WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF notability for this 2011 PhD. WP:NCREATIVE is plausible, but I did not quickly find reviews of the subjects work for this criterion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the Society of Antiquaries of London operates more like an academic private members club, even referring to its ostensible fellows as "members" and offering "affiliate membership" for those who want to pay. That is not exactly something the Royal Society would do. Being an FSA is usually more about who you know than about achievement per se; there are a significant number of FSAs who are early career researchers barely out of their PhDs. If they even have that, a cursory glance at the member's directory (which is public) shows that a significant number are Mr & Ms with just a BA to their name; we aren't talking esteemed professors and you'd be hard pressed to argue that each of them are "notable" by wikipedia's standards. As such you are right in your scepticism that being an FSA is a marker of notability. This is not the Humanities equivalent of the Royal Society as it portrays itself to be. MemoryForgotten (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Affiliate membership is not the same as being elected a fellow of the society. It is essentially paying for access to a library. The idea that it somehow undermines the society is peculiar. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. I'm aware of the difference between the forms of membership, nonetheless being an affiliate also includes "Invitations to Regional Fellows Group Meetings". Overall it's not something that would be offered by the Royal Society, where I doubt you could pay a fee of £5/month to sit alongside its membership at meetings. Whether or not that undermines the Society, without picking on individuals you can judge for yourself the standard of its fellows by scanning the list. There are many more of Mr Bob Smith BA FSA who digs trenches for Wessex Archaeology (not an actual person) and Dr Jane Jones PhD FSA who is an assist prof teaching Classics at a backwater university (again not a real person) than there are Barry Cunliffes and Mary Beards.

It's not the Royal Society. Stepping away from whether or not the subject of this discussion counts as "notable" (I see the argument that she has TV appearances etc), I would question more generally whether being a fellow of this particular society meets the "highly selective" society criteria of WP:NPROF 3 as it was intended. You might end up with articles on some very obscure folk if that's all that's required to be noteworthy. MemoryForgotten (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being an affiliate member is clearly not the same as being as fellow/member. But in any case, I don't feel that being a fellow is sufficient to meet WP:NPROF, but it's a contributing factor in making a case to show notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This conjectural comparison to the Royal Society is completely spurious. The society makes a clear distinction between fellows and members. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is a distinction made, that was not my point. MemoryForgotten (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nevell, it looks to me like the most of the members of the society are fellows. It apparently has 3300 fellows in a smallish field in a smallish country; the subject here was nominated a few years after her PhD. I don't think that all of the fellows are necessarily notable. Now, the fellowship doesn't hurt notability, and may contribute slightly (as Kj cheetham says). I suspect that reviews of the books and/or of the program (since she began to contribute) may exist, but I haven't found seen them advanced so far. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a problem with the number of 3300? Richard Nevell (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3300 specifically isn't the problem. The lack of selectivity is. For comparison, the number of IEEE fellows selected in a year is at most 0.1% of the voting membership [3]. (I bring up the IEEE because they are specifically mentioned in WP:NPR C3.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is surprising to see a new editor making an AfD nomination in their very first edit. Perhaps the poster has a long history of IP editing? PamD 10:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the same. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't a vote, but likewise - all of User:MemoryForgotten's contributions to Wikipedia are on this very page. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per WP:CREATIVE criteria #3, she has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work and that work been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews as she was a presented of The Great British Dig which I think clearly is a significant "collective body of work" CT55555(talk) 11:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Ignoring all talk on this page about COI, as we're here to discuss if the subject is notable rather than the state of the article, I'm inclined to agree with CT55555, though not sure how significant it is, hence my !vote is "weak". If consensus ends up being to delete, should consider if something can be merged to The Great British Dig as WP:ATD. -Kj cheetham (talk)

I'm also not sure how significant the TV show is/was, but it seems clearly "well known" which is an alternative criteria. CT55555(talk) 14:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: appears to be notable. But there are several odd things:

The article stated that she is bisexual, but there is no mention of that in the source given, which only says she is a committee member of an Equality and Diversity Group; I have removed the unsupported statement
There seems to be no current staff profile for her at Newcastle, although as recently as Sept 2022 she was mentioned in a news item there as Reader
The organisation dig4archaeology which she founded has a website (https://www.dig4arch.co.uk/) which my browser says is a security risk
As noted above, the nominator for deletion has done so in their first post, which is unusual. PamD 14:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: appears to be notable. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's certain. LvivForev (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd like to see if we can establish a solid NCREATIVE case here via reviews. There are a couple of reviews/similar of the Great British Dig that mention Duckworth [4][5], but I'm a little uncertain of the reliability of those sources. I can't read [6], but it looks like it might be relevant. I found also some reviews of one of her edited volumes [7][8][9], also [10] of another edited volume -- we don't usually take these as seriously as reviews of authored works, but they contribute something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on title If the article survives this AfD it should be moved to the correct spelling of her name, with the diacritical on the "e". But it's bad practice to move during an AfD. PamD 00:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:FILMMAKER (The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or review certainly applies here, and you could make a case for WP:NACADEMIC (The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.) if we consider that her role as the archaeological presenter (contrasting Hugh Dennis as the resident comedian) on The Great British Dig is a reflection of her professional role as, well, an archaeologist. If, pre-Dig, she wasn't notable for anything except archaeology, then it seems that we've got a WP:NACADEMIC pass there; if she was, then we've got one under WP:GNG. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some reviews of her academic work, which help to establish notability under c1 of WP:NACADEMIC - in particular, Recycling and Reuse has been widely praised in the AJA and BMCR, both big-hitting Classical/Archaeological reviewers. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like a back-handed compliment to me, sorry. LvivForev (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! You are the second person who's primary contribution to the website is this specific discussion. Can you tell us what brought you here? Also, who are you replying to?

CT55555(talk) 17:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to confirm that I have no connection to LvivForev. If you're also directing that question to me I have a fairly long but inconsistent history on Wikipedia dating back 17ish years. Initially under a couple of different accounts and also IP editing. I created this account because of needing to be logged in to nominate for deletion. Nonetheless while there's a lot of attention on the page given to my lack of other edits (in this account), I think that it's an unrelated side issue and either the nomination is justified or it isn't. I can see that the consensus is leaning towards keeping and if that's the consensus then I have no argument with that. There's no intent of being underhand, hence following the correct procedure. MemoryForgotten (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My question was to @LvivForev, but thanks for this context nonetheless. CT55555(talk) 21:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete or redirect to Great British Dig~~, per WP:TOOSOON. For WP:NCREATIVE cases, I'm looking for approximately 2 reviews each of two authored works, or a larger number of reviews of edited volumes. The reliable source reviews I could find of the Great British Dig focus much more on the (probably notable) main host. We have a handful reviews of (co)edited volumes, but overall I'm seeing a reasonably sucessful, but still WP:MILL associate professor in a "book" field. As far as WP:NPROF goes: The citations do not support WP:NPROF C1, and you can see my comments on the society above. The best case for WP:NPROF is via C7 per UndercoverClassicist. I do take the start towards this seriously, but again, although I expect the subject to eventually be notable, it looks WP:TOOSOON to me here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable source reviews I could find of the Great British Dig focus much more on the (probably notable) main host

I'm not sure I see what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that reviews of the Great British Dig need to focus primarily on Duckworth to count towards a WP:NCREATIVE case? The criteria for c3 per WP:NCREATIVE is:
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)

As I read that, what matters is:
a) that the person created or played a major role in co-creating the work; and

b) that [the] work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

I don't see any suggestion that those reviews need to have mentioned or focused on the person directly. After all, there are plenty of people who are unquestionably notable for having worked on high-profile projects who would rarely be the focus of a review, or indeed even named in one - screenwriters, producers, composers and so on spring to mind. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist, I'm not looking for WP:SIGCOV of Duckworth in reviews. But I'm seeing reviews that typically focus on Hugh Dennis a great deal; meanwhile, the number of reviews in reliable sources is not so large. I don't think there's enough notability from the show (at least at this time) to justify an article on Duckworth just for being one of a team of archaeologists. I'll make combined notability cases at times, but I'm not seeing one that I like here so far. Are there reviews of the GBD book, beyond the one in the Telegraph? These would make the case clearer. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the show, you've got reviews in the Telegraph, the I, the Herald (big north of the border - I think the third most-read paper in Scotland?). Those are three big, respectable national newspapers, so would seem to meet multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, even if we discount the Herald (edited: I originally, incorrectly, wrote I: that review focuses entirely on the show) review for bundling GBD with a few other programmes.

For the book, you've got the review cited in the article from The Past, which is the website that bundles together a few big print publications - Current Archaeology and Military History Matters being the biggest that I know of. There's another in My Weekly, which again isn't small fry: they've got a circulation of about 62,000. So, again, we've got multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

So two mass-market works, one co-created, one solo-created, both with multiple independent reviews at a national level. Add to that the academic work: we've got two reviews in big Classical journals for one of her edited volumes already in the article.

As before, my reading of WP:CREATIVE is that it's the coverage of the work that matters: if the work meets the part of the criteria I labelled as b) above, and the person meets the part I labelled as a) above, the wording the policy says that they are notable. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another article on the show's activities from the Express: again, national-level coverage of a creative product she's co-created. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist, you've brought me over to a Weak keep. The review in the Telegraph is substantial, once I managed to read it (I had access problems). I'd seen the review/interview in My Weekly, and discounted it as a possibly-unreliable source, but it seems to be ok. This is enough to establish WP:NBOOK for her book, and combined with the coverage of the show (which does tend to mention her only as one of a team of archaeologists) and reviews of her co-edited volumes, I think there's a reasonable WP:NCREATIVE case; possibly with some support from WP:NPROF C7. Note in passing that the Daily Express is generally unreliable, per WP:RSP. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist The application of this criteria seems questionable to me. Can the subject of this article rightfully be credited as a creator of the Great British Dig? I note that all of the examples that wiki cites as creative professionals (authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other) are all people with actual artistic control behind the works they're involved in. They actually created them, and that is to say they are responsible for actually conceptually conceiving the works and then bringing them into life. For instance this category would include a director or a producer (i.e those with creative control) but it would not include an actor. And indeed this is confirmed by actors being categorised as part of Entertainers within WP:NCREATIVE. If a film is not created by an actor, how a 'resident expert' a creator of a tv show they're in? Not only did Duckworth not have a "major role" in creating the show, she did not create it in any sense whatsoever, although she is in it. Its executive producer is Steve Wynne of Strawberry Blond TV and it was commissioned by Tim Hancock; it was they who created the show. (Neither have a wiki page, and incidentally nor does the production company.) It seems that for the argument of Duckworth as a 'creative' to hold, she needs to fit into the category of Entertainer:

Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors,[12] models, and celebrities:
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. (Previously #3)

A category for which she would seemingly not qualify. MemoryForgotten (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russ_Woodroofe I'm curious as to your thoughts on the above. MemoryForgotten (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read beyond the shortcut name, they don't need to be the creator, they need to have "played a major role in co-creating". In my analysis, a co-presenter plays a major role in co-creating something. CT55555(talk) 21:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one's a little bit subjective, since neither WP:NCREATIVE nor WP:NACTOR explicitly use the word 'television presenter' in delineating the people covered by them. The eligibility for WP:NCREATIVE is defined as such:
Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers ... and other creative professionals.

I'd certainly suggest that being a 'resident expert' on a show is far closer to being an author or journalist than to being an actor - you're not just brought on to read someone else's lines, but because you are the source of the expertise behind what those lines should be. Of course, no resident expert has 100% control over what they end up saying, but that's true of any author, director or other creative professional.

It's probably never going to be verifiable to Wiki's standards how the division of labour for The Great British Dig actually played out, but if someone's role in the show is to provide (and share) expertise, and they are a major part of the show in that capacity, then they should be assumed to have (real, but not unlimited) creative control over their part of it. If there's a reliable source saying that their 'resident experts' are in fact not employed for their expertise, then that could be factored in against that proposition.

Journalists certainly don't have total creative control over the newspaper, magazine, television show etc. that they are part of, so I'm not sure where the following is coming from:
They actually created them, and that is to say they are responsible for actually conceptually conceiving the works and bringing them into life

That definitely doesn't describe, for example, an editor, which is one of the specific named examples on WP:NCREATIVE. I think the standard you are applying here is higher than that written into the policy.

Even leaving the TV show to one side, though, there are multiple independent reviews of her books, both solo-written and co-written, which opens a WP:NAUTHOR case on a very similar line to the television one. There's also the WP:NACADEMIC case that, by being on the television show, through her writing and through her various media, festival etc. appearances that have spun off from both, she has had a substantial impact outside academia.

UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(In the time I spent typing that out, User:CT55555 has put the point far more succinctly.) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd certainly suggest that being a 'resident expert' on a show is far closer to being an author or journalist than to being an actor - you're not just brought on to read someone else's lines, but because you are the source of the expertise behind what those lines should be."

I'm not so sure, with the Entertainer category including "opinion makers" in particular (Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities), I'd argue that the Entertainer fits a resident expert closer than a journalist or an author. While I fully appreciate that you and CT55555 are in agreement here, I see nothing in the category of WP:NCREATIVE that suggests that it isn't as limited and tightly defined as it sounds. As I mentioned before the examples given (authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects) all produce the works they're known for, in a way that would not include actors, presenters, talking heads, panelists. The latter are "the talent" who appear in the work but did not actually produce or create it. You may by all means see me as wrong but there's nothing in the guidelines which counts a presenter as a creative. MemoryForgotten (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore the sub definition of 'creative', I believe matches this definition of strictly 'someone who produces' exactly.

'The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or

The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Whereas the sub definition of 'entertainer' I believe fits the role of a 'tv expert' or presenter more accurately:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. (Previously #3)''' MemoryForgotten (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've got necessity and sufficiency mixed up here - you're certainly right that an auteur with total creative control over their product fits that description, but that definitely isn't the only way to meet it. It would also be highly unusual in English to categorise resident experts and presenters of non-fiction programmes along with actors. It might help if you could provide an example where the WP:NACTOR policy has been applied in a similar case before?

...I see nothing in the category of WP:NCREATIVE that suggests that it isn't... [emphasis mine]

I'm not sure that line of reasoning is valid: if we're going to say that the policy has certain restrictions (such as that the person has to have led and/or conceptualised the project with which they are involved, which sounds like what you are suggesting), we need to find something in the policy that says as much. It isn't good enough to say that someone who met this additional restriction would also meet the policy as written, which is where I think your argument above has, perhaps inadvertently, ended up. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MemoryForgotten: you asked for my take. The subject is listed as a single author on the book associated with the show, and there appear on a second look to be enough reviews to make it a notable book. Combined with lots of other work with some level of impact (being a member of the archaeological team on the show, the reviewed edited volumes), I think it's (weakly) enough. I believe that the application of WP:NAUTHOR and/or WP:NCREATIVE is generally consistent with practice at past deletion discussions on academics in book fields. The persistence of coverage over time and the edited volumes keep this from being a WP:BLP1E situation. Meanwhile, you've made 32 edits related to this AfD, and no other edits. Perhaps it is time to find another area to work on? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of everyone here other than you, the nominator, agreeing to keep, I'm going to duck out here, confident that who ever closes this can see the same consensus that I can see right now. CT55555(talk) 02:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe she has significant coverage, being a resident expert on the show. I found a few other articles in online magazine style publications. I know these might not be regarded as reliable sources, I do believe these build a case for her. Equine-man (talk) 19:58, 6 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rage Parasuram[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. He served as Mayor of an small city and state general secretary of YSR Congress Party which are not notable positions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, no WP:GNG — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if @Goldsztajn's comment was to my !vote or the nominator's, but clarifying my comment above as "does not meet WP:NPOL (SNG), neither does WP:GNG" — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DaxServer not specifically at you, just the general discussion. The nomination contains no actual policy/guideline basis for deletion (or evidence of BEFORE); however, as your contribution asserts no passing of the GNG, there is a basis for the nomination to proceed (hence my comment, rather than calling for a procedural close). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One cannot "fail" NPOL. NPOL is a positive test indicative of presumed notability, not the basis to determine deletion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom and Daxserver. Semantics aside. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Jimfbleak with the rationale "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page, see WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:Notability (people)". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Aghazadeh[edit]

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

WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY on a research assistant that does not seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG based on evidence presented. Possible WP:TOOSOON. If he is genuinely notable, it would be better for someone other than the subject to write the Wikipedia article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Biology, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass NPROF. The Google Scholar profiled the article links to only has three articles listed for him. --Mvqr (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NPROF and probably GNG (some google hits to self published sites/articles) Josey Wales^Parley 17:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see now meets WP:GNG or WP:NPROF, especially when looking at https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=7J5UtSYAAAAJ. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 was keep. (non-admin closure) `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gabler[edit]

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

Redirect attempts contested multiple times. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or restore redirect as per nom.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this page for Mike Gabler and it seems that there's been quite a bit of back and forth between it being deleted or staying. When I created the article, I didn't really know how to properly cite it, so if there's anything that can be done to add to it and make it more acceptable, please let me know. Every other winner of Survivor has their own Wikipedia page, so I believe this should be no different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coltyn1234 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not apply here. Just because other winners of the series have articles does not automatically assume the necessity for an article on this person. It still needs to meet notability guidelines. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm object. The original editor has give more then enough for notability guidelines. I have read the notability guidelines the one that the People Magazine published is more then enough. and He had given 16 different sources, how is that not enough? Maryanne Oketch page only has 5 articles and no one questioned it yet Thomas Sussek (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is more then enough Credible sources to keep the page to exist Thomas Sussek (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winning a major show like Survivor is an automatic GNG pass. Secondary sources report on him from winning the game, and they've decided he's notable on those grounds. DrewieStewie (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that simply winning a show is not an automatic GNG pass: to pass GNG, in-depth independent reliable sources are needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that historical precedent in regards to Survivor and media coverage says otherwise. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article does give a lot of references talking about the subject. Outside of WP:1E I think this shows notability. I'd like more speaking about his life, but there seems to be WP:SIGCOV to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a Survivor winner, Gabler should receive an automatic pass into Wikipedia. How would Maryanne Oketch or Erika Casupanan or any of the other winners like it if they were deleted? Gabler probably feels the same way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.103.179.19 (talk) 17:04, 6 January 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) Reading Beans (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Sani Idriss[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. His office is an appointment. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’m not sure there’s a clear consensus on Nigerian state commissioners, but in my view they’re not generally notable. Mccapra (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:POLOUTCOMES - Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, etc.) in countries where executive and/or legislative power is devolved to bodies at that level. Shoerack (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies NPOL. Commissioners are a consitutionally-defined, state-wide office, requiring approval from the State Assembly. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kulu Abdullahi Sifawa. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what his office being an appointment has to do with anything. So are all but two members of the executive branch of the US federal government, but we don't go around saying that Antony Blinken fails WP:NPOL. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, last year, I was against deleting entries about commissioners in Nigeria, but, somehow I got convinced that they were not notable for simply being commissioners and now, this? Maybe an RfC should be made to get further clarification. Also per WP:POLOUTCOMES#4 it states Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable, especially if they have had otherwise notable careers. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commissioners of states in Nigeria are neither elected local officials nor unelected candidates. They are members of the executive council. In Nigeria, "elected local official" would mean local government chairmen. "Unelected candidate" would mean a candidate who runs for a political office but is not elected. States of Nigeria commissioners are members of the executive council. "Executive arm" is one of the three arms of government. The other two arms are legislative and judicial. The governor, its deputy, and commissioners form the "executive arms," legislators (or members of parliaments) form the legislative arms, and judges of high courts and other courts form the judicial arms.

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. doesn't apply to commissioners in countries where they have the level of power. Shoerack (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We wouldn't be discussing the deletion of a person who has held a cabinet-level position in a US state. Yobe state has more people living in it than a considerable number of US states. The person is a figure of significance, and we can document that; we don't need an exhaustive bio. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:20, 8 January 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 Anambra State Library Board. Redirecting per ATD-R, clear consensus that the individual isn't notable; option to merge viable content exists. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nkechi Udeze[edit]

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

This might be notable, but, I'm not seeing it. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Museums and libraries, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm with the nom, I'm not sure director of a state board with 11 libraries is notable enough for wikipedia. I don't find much of anything for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’ve looked at this several times and don’t see that notability is established. Too many affiliated sources. Mccapra (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The director of a state-wide public library may be notable, but since we do not have a specific notability criteria for librarians as we do for political office holders such as judges (WP:NPOL), we can simply apply WP:GNG. Looking at the sources, the subject does not appear to have met WP:GNG. Instead of deleting it, we could merge it with the Anambra State Library Board. Shoerack (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested seems an ok idea. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 3 January 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. The arguments are all based in policy, but with 2 for deletion and 1 (plus what is essentially an unstated keep) there's just no consensus here. I suggest reframing as suggested in the last comments, and returning to AfD if that does not solve the issues described. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collectors market index[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The term appears to be a wiki-invention, not used in any sources outside Wikipedia and its forks. It fails WP:OR and WP:GNG. If this was to be considered a list, it would fail WP:LISTN. Lastly, by linking to some companies providing some valuation servies, this is possibly promotional (and heavily relies on WP:PRIMARY sources). Because no source actually covers this concept, I am afraid merger doesn't make sense. Previous AfD noted that the topic is discussed in one source (although apparently under a different, unspecificed name). If such, we should identify such a name and add a section to Collecting. The mess here is unfortunately WP:TNTable. PS. In the context I am somewhat familiar with, i.e. CCGs, the term used is price guide, and that apparently redirects to a short section Collecting#Value_of_collected_items. So the concept won't be lost from Wikipedia - we just need to clean up this poorly written fork/OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This kind of index is common in financial circles and doing a search on only the HAGERTY collector car indices I found some references that could be have some use for the article, [11] [12] and [13]. The references do show that the indices are used outside wiki. Would a rewrite and a possible name change fix the page's issues?

KeepItGoingForward (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible some of these indices have stand-alone notability. I'd suggest considering splitting and stubbing any that are, if you find sufficient sources for that (and linking them from collecting#value section). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KeepItGoingForward PS. Of course, if you find sources about the very topic, a rewrite could, in theory, fix the issues. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to rename the page to, "Collectors market indices" and have a list of the notable indices with their description. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term might be used in The Handbook of Alternative Assets, but it's the only work that pops up in my BEFORE. So we have so far found one source where the concept might be discussed. This is still not at the level of meeting GNG, I am afraid. So far I stand by my view that the best WP:ATD is a redirect to the Collecting article, as I mentioned in my OP. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the list of indexes to the collecting article sounds to be a good idea. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as WP:OR. If any of the indices are shown to be notable this may make sense as a category. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously closed as WP:NPASR, so relisting upon request. This article is ineligible for soft deletion as it has previously survived AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given lack of participation, I'll ping editors who participated in the first AfD: User:GermanJoe, User:Spinningspark. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks for the ping. I haven't changed my position since the last AFD. First of all, the nom is mistaken on one point. A market index is not the same as a price guide. It is an economic indicator analogous to a stock market index but for a particular asset, in our case, a particular collectible. I don't think we should get hung up on the lack of a collective name for these indices in sources. I would view the title as descriptive rather than a term of art. The fact that The Handbook of Alternative Assets has gathered together many of these indices in one book (including most that are in our article) is enough to justify a list article on Wikipedia in my opinion. And that's how we should be treating this page – as a list-plus page rather than a full article.

I don't think that the suggestion of breaking out the notable indices into separate articles has anything going for it. I doubt that any of them are notable enough for a stand-alone page. For instance, The Compleat Collector has non-trivial coverage of "Market Bradex" (a market index for collectible plates), but it's not enough to build an article. However, there is more than enough information out there to collectively build a page on these indices. And by the way, the Bradex is currently missing from the page. SpinningSpark 11:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm getting better results using "collectible market index" as a search term (which would also make a better title). It turned up this magazine article which definitely discusses these market indices as a group. It also found "The mathematics of building a stamp imdex", a substantial piece on creating a market index from the book Collectible Investments for the High Net Worth Investor. While that may sound overly specific, the treatment is quite general and is based on techniques used in earlier work by other researchers on house price indices. Adding some of that to the article would definitely make it article-like rather than list-like. SpinningSpark 11:36, 2 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Satchwell[edit]

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

Headmaster of a school in the UK. Earned some titles, but no SigCov. Article written suspiciously like a puff piece. BrigadierG (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and United Kingdom. BrigadierG (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, knighted in 2001, for example The Guardian Headteacher knighted for online success Piecesofuk (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In no possible sense does a knighthood not quality under WP:ANYBIO #1. And sufficient coverage to meet GNG in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Achievements and awards satisfy WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:54, 4 January 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 Professional Soccer League (1984–2001). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Thunder[edit]

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

not a notable team Chidgk1 (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Professional Soccer League (1984–2001) as possible search term. Does not appear to be independently notable. Giant Snowman 16:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Professional Soccer League (1984–2001).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:59, 2 January 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 USL League Two. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Cougars[edit]

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

Not a notable team Chidgk1 (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USL League Two as possible search term. Does not appear to be independently notable. Giant Snowman 16:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USL League Two per Giant.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:02, 3 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-class alliance[edit]

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

Not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This appears to be a proper topic, as I have found multiple literary/academic sources that deal with the topic either in part ([14]) or in full ([15][16][17]). These were located from a relatively cursory search. Curbon7 (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -The first ten hits on Google Scholar all appear to be on point. I didn't vet them for RS but that seems like a strong presumption that good sources exist, and probably in much greater number if somebody breaks out JStor or some other database. Elinruby (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 20:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Centre North East[edit]

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

Not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to be the tallest building in town, but it's a pretty recent office building. Nothing special, not a historic or listed building. [18] is about all I find. I can't find anything for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 1 January 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. There is no consensus to delete, but rough consensus to retain the article, without prejudice to a redirect being considered in the future. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Butterworth–Juru Highway[edit]

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

very boring! Seriously though how is this notable? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please see WP:BORING Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am inclined to keep as this is part of Malaysia Federal Route 1, the primary route in Malaysia and existing back into the 19th century. --Rs chen 7754 17:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am Leaning Keep, but I would also accept Redirect to Malaysia Federal Route 1. –Fredddie ™ 20:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep

A: boring isn't deletion worthy, what rule does this violate

B: per many many many wikiroads discussions its a regional level road Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Boring shall not be an argument to suggest for an article to be deleted per WP:BORING. Chongkian (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is part of a federal highway in Malaysia, so it is a notable road. However, I would also be okay with making this a Redirect to Malaysia Federal Route 1. Dough4872 21:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Notability is based on coverage in sources, not existence. If part of a larger highway that is notable, it can be covered there. Reywas92^Talk 23:48, 3 January 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 as additional sourcing was found. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bilateral netting[edit]

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

does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, stating that the subject does not seem to be notable implies that the nominator has not bothered to check. This topic is notable, per the sources now added to the article. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Stub article that needs much improvement but the sourcing added makes the subject's notability clearer. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes good to keep now thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State Highway 13 (Madhya Pradesh)[edit]

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

Zero reliable sources to support the information in the article. Was draftified in an attempt to get the article approved, but an admin continues to re-add uncited information in violation of WP:BURDEN. While this does have a map, that is its sole reference. However, the map does not support any of the information in the stub. The article is about a state highway. The map's legend shows that dark green and light green are the colors for state highways (state highway and new declared state highway, respectively). Their does appear to be a 13 on a green road, but it does not run along the route described. In addition, the map does not include districts, and neither does it have the information needed to either confirm the length or have a distance measurement. This has been repeated in at least 2 other of these stubs. It would be easier, and more in-line with WP policy to simply redirect these articles to a list article, but that has been objected to. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Madhya Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator admits that this is a state highway, and WP:GEOROAD clearly says that state highways are typically notable. @Onel5969:, WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST suggest that you should check for sources before making this nomination. I assume you have done so? --Rs chen 7754 17:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rs chen 7754 17:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I suggest you read WP:VERIFY, WP:BURDEN, and #2 in WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, more attempts at intimidation. The government document http://mprdc.gov.in/2017-09-15-498.pdf linked off List of state highways in Madhya Pradesh easily validates much of this information. I will see what else I can find, but this is basically a WP:RUSHDELETE to subvert GEOROAD and NEXIST. --Rs chen 7754 17:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that MapmyIndia does verify the routings. --Rs chen 7754 22:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOROAD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The official route designation order helps satisfy WP:V. Openstreetmap supports the route description, [19] as does the map source noted by Rschen. State highways are typically notable WP:GEOROAD. Rupples (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State Highway 12 (Madhya Pradesh)[edit]

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

Zero reliable sources to support the information in the article. Was draftified in an attempt to get the article approved, but an admin continues to re-add uncited information in violation of WP:BURDEN. While this does have a map, that is its sole reference. However, the map does not support any of the information in the stub. The article is about a state highway. The map's legend shows that dark green and light green are the colors for state highways (state highway and new declared state highway, respectively). The first issue arises that there are at no roads on the map in light or dark green which are numbered 12. There is a road numbered 12, in a different color green (sort of yellow-green) which is not explained in the legend. But that road, is not identified as a state road. And it does not run along the route described. In addition, the map does not include districts, and neither does it have the information needed to either confirm the length or have a distance measurement. This has been repeated in at least 2 other of these stubs. It would be easier, and more in-line with WP policy to simply redirect these articles to a list article, but that has been objected to. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Madhya Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator admits that this is a state highway, and WP:GEOROAD clearly says that state highways are typically notable. @Onel5969:, WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST suggest that you should check for sources before making this nomination. I assume you have done so? --Rs chen 7754 17:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do not agree that it is a state road. In fact I state explicitly above that there does not appear to be any state road with that number on the map, according to its legend. And I suggest you read WP:VERIFY, WP:BURDEN, and #2 in WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, more attempts at intimidation. The government document http://mprdc.gov.in/2017-09-15-498.pdf linked off List of state highways in Madhya Pradesh easily validates much of this information. I will see what else I can find, but this is basically a WP:RUSHDELETE to subvert GEOROAD and NEXIST. --Rs chen 7754 17:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it doesn't. The only thing it might verify, if this is the same road, is the length. The route and districts are totally different. Would be nice if this work was put in before it had to be taken to AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is on page 9 of the PDF. The number is under the second column, not the first. And as far as the colors, lime-green is actually a "new declared state highway", which makes sense given that the other government document declares all new numbers as of 2017 for the state highways of Madhya Pradesh. --Rs chen 7754 19:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't disagree with the color comment above, which supports my comments in the nomination. That doesn't explain the 3rd color of green. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only see two colors of green on the entire map, though given [20] I have reason to doubt that this map is up to date as far as the other two highways nominated. --Rs chen 7754 21:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that MapmyIndia does verify the routings. --Rs chen 7754 22:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rs chen 7754 17:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOROAD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the confusion generated by the original mapping source, the nominator was right to flag this. However, a reliable source has been found to prove the road is a state highway, specifically, the official designation order. Openstreetmap supports the route description, [21] as does the map source noted by Rschen so the article appears to satisfy WP:V. WP:GEOROAD suggests state highways are typically notable. Rupples (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State Highway 10 (Madhya Pradesh)[edit]

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

Zero reliable sources to support the information in the article. Was draftified in an attempt to get the article approved, but an admin continues to re-add uncited information in violation of WP:BURDEN. While this does have a map, that is its sole reference. However, the map does not support any of the information in the stub. The article is about a state highway. The map's legend shows that dark green and light green are the colors for state highways (state highway and new declared state highway, respectively). The first issue arises that there are at least 3 roads on the map in light or dark green which are numbered 10. There is an additional road numbered 10, in a different color green which is not explained in the legend. And here is the crux of the issue, none of the roads begin or end in either Gunna or Bhopal. In addition, the map does not include districts, and neither does it have the information needed to either confirm the length or have a distance measurement. This has been repeated in at least 2 other of these stubs. It would be easier, and more in-line with WP policy to simply redirect these articles to a list article, but that has been objected to. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator admits that this is a state highway, and WP:GEOROAD clearly says that state highways are typically notable. @Onel5969:, WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST suggest that you should check for sources before making this nomination. I assume you have done so? --Rs chen 7754 17:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I suggest you read WP:VERIFY, WP:BURDEN, and #2 in WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, more attempts at intimidation. The government document http://mprdc.gov.in/2017-09-15-498.pdf linked off List of state highways in Madhya Pradesh easily validates much of this information. I will see what else I can find, but this is basically a WP:RUSHDELETE to subvert GEOROAD and NEXIST. --Rs chen 7754 17:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that MapmyIndia does verify the routings. --Rs chen 7754 22:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rs chen 7754 17:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WPGEOROAD We had this discussion on American highways and global standards exist. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOROAD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the confusion generated by the original mapping source, the nominator was right to flag this. However, a reliable source has been found to prove the road is a state highway, specifically, the official designation order, so the article fulfills WP:V. Further, Openstreetmap supports the route description, [22] (zoom in) as does the map source noted by Rschen. Rupples (talk) 05:22, 8 January 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 Studio Other Spaces. Another redirect was also mention. If you would like to change the target, please start a discussion on the redirect talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Behmann[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO. The first ref (Riba Journal) seems to be a RS and has significant coverage. The other refs are just of the type that mention him as an architect/designer of a project that is the main subject of the article. Searching finds many more like these, but not more with in-depth coverage. Redirected to Studio Olafur Eliasson as an WP:ATD-R. MB 03:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Germany. MB 03:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Studio Other Spaces. The sources I've found almost exclusively cover Behmann in relation to his partnership with Eliasson. We already have an article for that and it would be sufficient to cover this topic there. Sources do not show him to be independently notable from that collaboratory partnership. czar 07:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are equal partners, working together from different perspectives (artistic and architectural respectively). According to the comments, the article has been updated with information about Behmann's importance as an architect. More references to significant material have been added to the list of references. Михайло (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Studio Other Spaces.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus here, after an evaluation of sources, is to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notarize (company)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are profiles, routine annoucments, PR, press-releases, funding news and appointment notices. UPE scope_creep^Talk 12:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I reviewed the sources in the article, and I just do not agree that all of these sources are just WP:ROUTINE garbage. I'm not going to do a complete source analysis, but if anyone looks at these, I think they'll come to the same conclusion. We have a heroes list of sources including NPR, WSJ, NYT, Business Insider and Boston Globe. We have a bunch of other sources that sometimes have press release type coverage, such as Forbes, Fortune, Entrepreneur, BizJournals, TechCrunch. Most of this I could unfortunately see only bits and pieces because of paywalls, but of those I could get into, I saw significant coverage, not routine press releases. Jacona (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, there are a lot of articles on newspapers.com. Because of the search engine, there's a lot of false returns for the few good ones, but there are several that looked interesting. I'm out of time for now. — Jacona (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:ORGCRIT, the WP:NCORP guideline is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion, and WP:SIRS says Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other, so this is a review of sources:

Notaries Are Starting To Put Down The Stamp And Pick Up A Webcam (NPR, 2017) - includes a quote from "Adam Pase, co-founder of Notarize, one of the companies that remotely connects signers and notaries", "Pase, with the company Notarize, says...", and "Pase estimates that Notarize has...". This is not WP:CORPDEPTH because the source is about a general topic where the company is an example of a type of company or product being discussed with quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.
Mortgage Closings Just Took a Big Step Into the Digital Age (WSJ, 2017) - I can access this article via ProQuest 1927183189 and this also appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH because it is an announcement of a a product line launch, with quotes from related parties at Freddie Mac and Notarize and this description of the company: The transaction was made possible by digital technology created by Arlington, Va.-based Notarize, an online notary service, that bridges all necessary parties to the transaction. Other companies have developed similar technology as well as a brief description of the online closing process.
A Will Without Ink and Paper (NYT, 2019) - is about online wills generally, and mentions Trust & Will, an online start-up, helps people create fully digital wills and trust documents in Nevada and Indiana and is ready to roll out its service as other states pass legislation. It has teamed up with Notarize.com, a platform that provides legal virtual notarization for real estate and legal documents and The Notarize platform requires a valid federal ID, which Ms. DiChello said was not enough in addition to quotes from "Patrick Kinsel, chief executive of Notarize", so this also appears to lack WP:CORPDEPTH, and revision appears to be needed to help the article conform to information in the source.
Covid-19 Pandemic Boosts Startups Behind Virtual Showings (WSJ, 2020) is also available via ProQuest 2454373741, and it is not about Notarize, although it mentions: Camber Creek has invested in more than two dozen startups. They include Notarize Inc., a firm that enables home buyers and sellers to use the internet to remotely notarize documents involved in sales, refinancings and other legal matters. In July, when Notarize announced a new $35 million funding round, it said its business had increased 400% since March, when the pandemic was declared which is not WP:CORPDEPTH because this is trivial coverage of an acquisition, capital transaction, and financial results.
For some employees, it’s now ‘Work From Anywhere’ (Boston Globe, 2020) - this is not WP:CORPDEPTH because the brief mentions of the company are Pat Kinsel, CEO of online notary service Notarize, said..., (Notarize saw a 600 percent increase in business as the pandemic caused many people to look for alternatives to in-person services), Some Notarize workers who previously commuted to the Boston have since moved out of Massachusetts ― some only temporarily ― to states such as Indiana, Florida, and New Hampshire and Kinsel said - it is another source presenting the company as an example of a type of company or product being discussed with quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.
Video shows 'USPS whistleblower' was not alone when swearing to affidavit alleging mail-in ballot fraud (Business Insider, 2020) - this source only mentions the company obliquely, by including a link to the company website in the phrase "online notary service" in That claim was seemingly legitimized by an affidavit that Hopkins signed, obtained through an online notary service, and later cited in litigation by the Trump campaign, so appears to clearly fail WP:CORPDEPTH.
5 software acquisitions Salesforce’s Slack deal could spur (Fortune, 2020) - this is a list of five cloud business toolmakers that may be ripe for the taking with a one-graf description of the company, and revision appears to be needed to help the article conform to this source. Beyond the minimal depth, this also appears to be trivial coverage because it is inclusion in lists of similar organizations.
Next Billion-Dollar Startups: How Notarize Built A $760 Million Business In Online Notaries (Forbes, 2021) - "Nelligan did not respond to requests for comment" and "Kinsel declines to name" in the midst of a source based on Kinsel's quotes detract from the appearance of WP:ORGIND. This source is used in the article to document a non-notable [award] received by the organization.
Notarize raises $130M, tripling valuation on the back of 600% YoY revenue growth (TechCrunch, Mar. 25 2021) - See also Notarize Announces $130M in Funding to Fuel Growth and Fully Digitize Life’s Most Important Transactions (BusinessWire, Mar. 25, 2021) for the same and similar dependent content regurgitated by TechCrunch. This is also trivial coverage because it is an announcement of a capital transaction and annual financial results.
Notarize's Startup Story: A Botched Twitter Stock Transaction and a Broken Leg (BostInno, The Business Journals, 2016) is a product of American City Business Journals which describes itself as ACBJ offers business leaders many avenues for making connections and gives them a competitive edge locally, regionally and nationally. ACBJ is the premier media solutions platform for companies that target business decision-makers, and the source is based on quotes from Kinsel and "a news release" so it further appears to lack WP:ORGIND, beyond the questionable independence of the publication generally.
Need a Document Notarized? There's an App for That. (Entrepreneur, 2016) - this brief source links to a press release, and is trivial coverage of an announcement of a product line launch.

The remaining sources in the article appear to be of low quality and similarly lack WP:CORPDEPTH to support notability. Some search results are complicated by hits to sources using the word "notarize" but with regard to the company, there appear to be further press releases, announcements, trivial coverage, and low-quality sources. Based on the sources I have reviewed and WP:PROMO, delete seems appropriate for this article. Beccaynr (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr: I was planning to post a source analysis. Excellent work. Happy New Year Beccaynr. I hope you and your family have a great 2023. scope_creep^Talk 00:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete @Beccaynr did an amazing job with source analysis. This is how its done. Happy new year by the way. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. I am in agreement with the source analysis above by Beccaynr. None of the sources meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The extensive source analysis above has been done with several misunderstandings about notability policy. WP:NCORP requires significant coverage in reliable sources, which is shown here. Good sources don't get rejected just because someone tries to dissect them by making assumptions about the source of the coverage. If you dislike the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Business Insider, Boston GLobe and other perennial reliable business sources, you can always bring it up at the reliable sources noticeboard. This was previously a no consensus and there has only been more coverage of the company since then, including in TechCrunch and Boston Business Journal. Aptshackhouse (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC) — Aptshackhouse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No. That is absolutely incorrect and shows a complete lack of understanding of consensus and policy particularly WP:NCORP. You've completely decided to subvert NCORP for you own needs which breaks the Terms of Use. User is a WP:SPA and a likely COI. Those two references fails WP:CORPDEPTH as routine employment news. scope_creep^Talk 09:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add some. First, there's a difference between sources used to support facts/information within an article and those used to establish notability. We use NCORP for the latter and it requires a lot more than "significant coverage in reliable sources". Its a strawman argument to say that sources such as WSJ, Forbes, etc are being rejected because they are not reliable sources. Nobody has done that. NCORP also requires "Independent Content" which includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So, for example, when I look at the BizJournals link (which is accepted as RS), the second sentence starts by saying "A spokesperson for the online document notarization startup said Monday that the company laid off 60 workers last week". It continues to quote the spokesperson and the CEO as well as quoting from previous company announcements. It has absolutely zero content that meets the "Independent Content" requirement as per WP:ORGIND. That is why this source has been rejected for the purposes of establishing notability and perhaps now you can understand why the others have also failed NCORP criteria as per the analysis above. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per source analysis above. Avilich (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH per thorough analysis above. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A62 derby[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was 'no consensus' last time largely because it was bundled with a lot of other rivalry articles, some of which were clearly notable. I still have serious doubts about the notability of this rivalry and whether it actually warrants a stand-alone article. I appreciate that it gets a mention in a Sky Sports quiz. I see it mentioned in IDN Times too but that could well be derived from the Wikipedia article. Searching the alternative name "Roses derby" only comes up with coverage relating to Leeds United F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry. Searches in Google Books and the BNA yielded nothing useful. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, and nothing I've ever heard of as a fairly local resident to these areas. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree, no evidence of notability. Equine-man (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom etc --Devoke water 22:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zannetos Koumasis[edit]

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

Footballer who had brief glimpses of a professional career but has spent the majority of his career to date in the lower tiers of Cypriot football. I was surprised to find some coverage of him but, upon further analysis, none of it seems to actually meet requirements. See WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC.

Google News has zero hits, which is a bad sign. I found a passing mention in Kerkida (translated) and also some coverage in 24sports and Sport FM. Both of these articles are copied and pasted from a press release from the club that Koumasis has signed for, so cannot possibly count towards notability. SPORTBASIC says [sources] that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. Famagusta News talks about a Motocross president of the same name but there is no evidence to suggest that these two people are the same. The footballing Koumasis would have been 25 when this article was written and was still playing in the lower tiers of the Cyprus football league system. This 'Zannetos Koumasi' is clearly a different person altogether. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Pai Soe[edit]

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

Badly sourced BLP. Searching in Burmese only seems to yield coverage of similarly-named people such as Yan Paing. Searching the English version of his name only yields databases like Transfermarkt, Wikipedia mirror sites and social media. This article needs to be deleted unless anyone can present clear evidence of significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zayar Naing[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Google News in English yields only trivial mentions in youth squad lists. Nothing found when searching through Burmese. Through other Burmese searches, I was able to find The MNL, which is not independent of the subject and only a passing mention. The only other source that I can find is News Eleven, which says that he has a knee injury and will be out for 8 months. I'm not seeing the level of depth for WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:22, 1 January 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. A decision to rename the page can take place in the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 12:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Suakin (1541)[edit]

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

The reason I have initiated a deletion discussion for this specific page is WP:OR.

Firstly the name of the page is misleading, this event is described in all in page references as a sacking and not an actual battle, therefore it is original research to refer to this event as a battle since no source refers to it as such.

Moreover, the statement of Portuguese victory in the infobox is unsourced, not only that but there was not any conflict or battle between the Portuguese and the Ottomans whatsoever during this event, in fact sources state that the city was deserted during the sacking so describing this as a “battle” which was a “Portuguese victory” between the Ottomans (who were not present) is most certainly WP:OR.

“The Portuguese also later attacked Suakin , in 1541 , when , as Jayne notes , they “ found the city deserted , and burnt it with all the ships in the roadstead ; there was little else for them to do , except to come to blows over the vast quantities of loot they acquired”^[1]

“On February 20th Estavâo da Gama, leaving the large vessels under Manuel da Gama to await his return, started for Suakin. When D. Christovão da Gama with the advanced guard reached there on Feb. 22nd, he surrounded the island, but found the town already deserted. Suakin struck the Portuguese by its size and apparent prosperity.“^[2]

Kabz15 (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jayne, Kingsley Garland. Vasco Da Gama and His Successors, 1460-1580. United Kingdom: Methuen & Company, Limited, 1910.
^ Whiteway, R. S.. Rise of Portuguese Power in India. India: Asian Educational Services, 1995.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Kabz15 (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly inappropriate nomination.

A) It's not original research because all the sources the article is based on are exclusively secondary or tertiary, such as the Portuguese navy specialist Saturnino Monteiro, Denvers, Bloss, and Couto.

B) A battle is clearly described in the article and sourced (Relevant paragraph: desembarcou na terra firme hum dia de madrugada, com mil homens repartidos em duas batalhas, huma deo a D. Christóvão, que havia de levar a vanguarda, e o Governador ficou com a outra em guarda da bandeira de Christo. E marchando apressados pera chegarem ao arraial antes de amanhecer, como fizeram, D. Christovão o commetteo com grande determinação, e o entrou com morte e damno de muitos Mouros = "he landed on the mainland one day by dawn, with a thousand men divided in two squadrons, one he gave to D. Cristóvão, who would take the lead, and the Governor led the other guarding the flag of Christ. And marching hurriedly to reach the camp before dawn, as they did, D. Cristóvão committed with great determination, and breached in with the death and damage of many moslems")

C) The user seems to have a problem with the infobox saying "Portuguese victory" but doesn't elaborate on what the alternative should be and why, and has already previously engaged in disruptive editing by simply removing the "result" section from similar articles as this one [23]. Wareno (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D) This seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT

Keep on purely procedural grounds, this appears to be a retaliatory nomination for Wareno's merge here.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Entirely invalid reason for deletion. Even if the title is inappropriate (and I'm not conceding that it is) that is an easily fixable problem. SpinningSpark 00:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blatant retaliation IMO, plus invalid argument. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only dropping in to point out that Wareno likes merging articles that don't say Portuguese victory in the infobox. Srnec (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to point out any of those articles that is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant their own article and not astoudingly trivial, go right ahead and be my guest. Wareno (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything astoudingly trivial about Attack on Mocha. It cites (correctly) a modern secondary source, which in turn cites the Décadas de Asia VII, pt 2, bk VI, ch 7 and bk VII, ch 6. How does this differ from the Suakin article, which relies on the Décadas and two pages from an 1894 source? Srnec (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely simple: one involved a field battle and the destruction of an important city, the other was an exchange of gunfire told in many paragraphs. If you sincerely believe that warrants a page of its own, I have no problem discussing it in the proper place and see what people think. Wareno (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to discuss it, but the article "Attack on Mocha" was obviously about more than just the attack on Mocha strictu sensu. It was about a campaign. Srnec (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Attack on Mocha" was the campaign. Don't want to discuss it, don't do so. Wareno (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFD is not for cleanup. The article can be fixed or renamed if need be. Srnec (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep -- no opinion on title, but no proper rationale for deletion has been enunciated, and the sources appear to be reliable. Elinruby (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since "only dropping in to point out" the behaviour of the users involved in this matter seems to be fine, I'd just like to "drop in and point out" that the user Kabz15 has now proceeded to un-merge all the stub articles that more users had already agreed were better off exclusively contained in their target pages (their content was left in their targets). [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] Wareno (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to Capture of Suakin (1541). We seem to have an article based on published sources that look to me like WP:RS. I see no reason why it should be deleted. It is misnamed, as there does not seem to have been any battle. "attack on ..." or "Sack of ..." would also be possibilities. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the title may be misleading doesn't mean we have to delete it. We can just change the name. TomMasterReal^TALK 02:55, 8 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clip (compiler)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources. Mdggdj (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources. Developer's website defunct. PaulT2022 (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. There's no significant coverage in any third-party reliable sources. Interestingly there's an older and possibly notable compiler called CLIP (mentioned in the second-to-last paragraph) but it's unrelated to this article's subject. This compiler's website is dead and the scant few repos I could find for it haven't been updated in years, so I think it's unlikely that the lack of notability will change. - Aoidh (talk) 04:08, 5 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aji Joko Sutopo[edit]

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

I appreciate that this footballer is still quite young, but he doesn't seem to be notable just yet. I have done an extensive WP:BEFORE, which includes an Indonesian source search. Almost all of these hits were mere mentions in a squad list or database profile pages. Likewise, the Google News results only bring up trivial mentions of Aji. The best source was Indosport, which confirms that he is a centre back and has signed a one-year contract but contains nothing else really. I could not find any indication of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC being met. The latter guideline asks for at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources but I cannot see any way in which this person could have such an article at this time. Please note that playing in an WP:FPL is no longer enough per WP:NSPORTS2022. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 1 January 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)} 11:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 21:06, 6 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who have played video game characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of actors who have played comic book characters

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

This was no-consensus in 2009, and then kept in 2012, but the lead article in the bundled 2012 AfD was deleted at a quieter 2nd AfD 5 years later. The real question here is simple: Is this something people talk about as a set? Not just the concept of live-action media based on video games but, specifically, actors in such media. I see articles about specific subsets of this cohort—Game Informer ("respected" actors), Business Insider ("terrible" movies)—but there does not seem to be any RS interest in the general concept of actors who've played characters who happen to originate from video games. And, importantly, such a list does not appear useful to anyone. This gets 120 views per month. It is not linked from any other articles. Its only recent "improvements" have been a slate of IMDb refs (the only references in the list). As cross-categorization goes, this is both arbitrary and unimportant. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Lists of people, and Video games. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:LISTN and also seems pretty WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well as a non-defining trait. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:OLIST as an over-extensive list with no obvious cutoff that will need constant updates. Or, for the policy based reason, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:IINFO. Agree this isn't a defining trait for a list. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial, "x person who did x thing". Suitable for WP:TVTROPES. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:00, 4 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stacks (rapper)[edit]

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

Musician who meets neither WP:NMUSIC nor WP:GNG. The article has been looking like this for a few years; I cut away a bunch of citation needed tags and unsourced content and looked at the article history to see if it had ever been reliably sourced and/or had any claims to notability. It hasn't. I searched for sources without finding anything in independent and secondary sources other than trivial mentions. Source 1 is about his father, and source 2 is about Stacks dating Brooke Hogan. Source 5 reads "Phyllisia Ross, an up and coming RnB singer from Miami". His music genres in the infobox read "Hip hop ⋅ R&B", and occupations read "Rapper, singer"? The source did NOT talk about Stacks being a R&B singer at all. Gujesta (commons) (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Florida. Gujesta (commons) (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found for Stacks the rapper, I get lots of hits on rappers with stacks of money. Oaktree b (talk) 18:03, 1 January 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. Consensus is that the added sources show notability. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 10:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gülnaz Karataş[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources given are not reliable and independent. Kadı Message 08:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Asia, and Turkey. Kadı Message 08:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick google scholar search shows a healthy amount of significant coverage from reliable sources. The article certainly passes GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 10:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldMiner24, Could you show them? Kadı Message 12:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly a nomination that requires an in-depth assessment. Firat News Agency, cited twice in the article, is essentially linked with the PKK and cannot be considered independent coverage. There are multiple academic sources that mention her (28 hits on Google Scholar) but these generally seem to be fleeting mentions that very briefly recap on the manner of her death but don't really discuss her life/legacy in a manner that would be in keeping with WP:SIGCOV. I'm hoping to follow with a more detailed assessment, am leaning delete currently, but am open to evaluating sources if they are presented here. --GGT (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is mentioned in the following book, which talks about a film that was made about her by established film maker Halil Uysal. That solidly demonstrates notability to me: Kurdish Documentary Cinema in Turkey: The Politics and Aesthetics of Identity and Resistance. (2016). United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. (page 200) CT55555(talk) 12:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article needs clean up, but she clearly meets WP:GNG by doing a simple google books search. There are many RS citations available to add here. I had added a few today. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily passes GNG. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555, @PigeonChickenFish @Paradise Chronicle: Did you read @GGT's argument? Most of the sources are not independent. Kadı Message 14:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GGT's message was posted before mine and I read it before reaching my own conclusion, which I shared above. CT55555(talk) 14:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kadı:, GGT The one source Firat News Agency is not independent, and I agree. There are many new sources added now, which are independent and fulfill RS, some even go in depth with full biographical details. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also saw the reply by GGT but also the reply and edits by CT55555 and PCF. She is described in multiple reliable sources and a feature length movie was made about her. Easily passes GNG.13:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:06, 5 January 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!} 02:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orquesta SCC[edit]

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

Much like its predecessor, I've been keeping an eye on this page for a while now, mainly dealing with SPAs and history revisionists trying to change the narrative on the group's origins. Other than the references in the article, all I can find as far as coverage goes is the usual events listings and show announcements. Happy to be proven wrong but I don't think they meet WP:GNG. Primefac (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and New York. Primefac (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that the article fails GNG. There is some reliable coverage but not a significant amount or enough to pass GNG. It seems that their most significant media coverage is an NPR Tiny Desk concert video staring their lead singer Edwin Perez (but importantly not this group, just the lead singer). GoldMiner24 ^Talk 10:20, 1 January 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loran Nordgren[edit]

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

Article was created by a new account whose sole edits are on this page. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. All the sources cited are of faculty pages, lists, minor prizes, or articles that quote the person but do not revolve around it. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Illinois. AllyD (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the nominator's WP:VAGUEWAVE, the citation record [29] makes this look like an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I would say the citation record actually shows that they aren't highly cited. A h-index of 26 is rather low. There are post-doctorates with similar numbers or higher. Notable professors are often in the 80+ range, though h-index is not always the best measure it is still often used. As a small counter to my point there are several papers that Loran Nordgren is the first author and highly cited on. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To add on to your first point, his top three most-cited papers were published in 2006, which was when he was a PhD student according to his website. A lot of his highly-cited work was done pre-2007 (when he got his PhD) and in collaboration with other researchers as second or third author. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I look more at most highly cited works than at h-index when considering notability. I see two works that are highly cited, even in a high citation field. Notability gets some support from some limited progress towards NAUTHOR, with at least one review (or at least review-type article) of the The Human Element. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Psychology, and Minnesota. TJMSmith (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can see both sides of the argument, but this individual doesn't quite meet notability guidelines; it's close but not there yet. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep that. In an encyclopaedia that allows articles on the list of Crayola colours, individual episodes of TV shows, and that article on the precognitive octopus, it would be perverse to delete the biography of a serious scholar, and any notability guideline that says otherwise needs rethinking.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The renaming addressed the issues with the page as a DAB page. Issues with the redirect should be directed to WP:RFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 09:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles federal building[edit]

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

Not a valid disambiguation page. This looks like a general navigation-type page for federal buildings in Los Angeles. The only two closely associated with the title "Los Angeles federal building" and not WP:PTMs are the first two, and "First Los Angeles federal building" is a redlink which is not a valid dab entry leaving only one. MB 02:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MB 02:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom's analysis, there isn't a building called the "Federal Building" in the city, this seems like a bitch of a stretch. Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it's meant to be a set index page, per WP:SIA, not a disambiguation page. In which case it probably makes sense to convert it, according to those guidelines. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless all we're doing is discussing deletion of the redirect, rather than the list? Cielquiparle (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as retitled. BD2412 T 21:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Garter Band[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND, few additional sources that are not the school's website. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 05:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 05:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Green Garter Band to the discussion, Both pages long maintained by COI accounts, as seen in this evening's edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, or redirect or merge to the parent band, Oregon Marching Band. It has much the same unsourced/promotional issues. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. LibStar (talk) 04:02, 4 January 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. There is a consensus to Keep this article. Possible rename or article improvements can be discussed after this closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals in film and television[edit]

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

Far too broad a category. I would wager that most films/series would end up being included here if any serious effort were made to do so. An anonymous username, not my real name 03:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. An anonymous username, not my real name 03:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While it is an exaggeration to say most films/series could be included, there are still far too many to keep it manageable. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the criterion, keep, but rename List of animal actors. Satisfies WP:NLIST: there are lists out there.[30][31][32] Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At risk of straying slightly off topic, I must ask if it really is an exaggeration. I am certainly having an easier time thinking of popular films/series with animal characters than without. Most are insignificant to the plot overall, but that wouldn't stop them from being eligible for this list. An anonymous username, not my real name 03:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Significant animal characters or "actors" only on this list, not just background dogs, cats or whatever.~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the animals have their own article, they should be listed. A proper table format would be more efficient way to present the information. Dream Focus 20:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Trimming some unsourced entries and organizing this better would be preferable. No objection to renaming as suggested above. If too unwieldy, the criteria could be tightened to specific animals who have appeared in more than one film or television show. Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with some serious cleanup. There needs to be some clear inclusion criteria, like bluelinks only, or must have an actual credit in the movie. For instance, was Spunk the mouse really credited in The Green Mile. Apparently it was only one of 15 mice playing the role of Mr. Jingles, I seriously doubt they were all listed. SpinningSpark 00:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as suggested by Clarityfiend. The real issue is that the name of the current list just sounds overly broad and indiscriminate, when looking at the actual list itself shows that it is really a list of notable animal actors, a topic that has sources demonstrating notability. Agreed that cleanup is needed, though, as it should be limited only to entries that either have their own article or reliable sources to demonstrate that they are a notable example. Rorshacma (talk) 07:18, 2 January 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.

I see two different sockpuppets at work in this article (not sure if there is any connection between the two). But I'm going to Soft Delete due to the low participation in this AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Douldai people[edit]

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

Ethnic group of people does not meet the the GNG criteria as refs are poorly cited and there is no information about this group on reliable and independent sources M.Ashraf333 (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - author has been on Wikipedia less than a month and should be given the opportunity to improve the sourcing. I have suggested on their talk page that they do so voluntarily and work on the sources, which are not *horrible* but do need to be improved in this article about an ethnic group in a topic area fraught with ethnic tension. But inadequate refencing is not a reason for deletion. Elinruby (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All of the references are unreliable esp. given the prohibition on colonial-era sources for ethnic groups/castes/tribes/... TrangaBellam (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CU note The editor who started this page, and moved it into article space, is the sock of a banned user. It's probably eligible for G5, but I see a fair number of edits from editors in good standing in its history, and don't have time to check to see whether any of them are substantive (or just moving back and forther form draft space, nominating for deletion etc). Girth Summit _(blether) 14:56, 4 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Yadav (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Non-notable entrepreneur, having only Paid PRs listed in reference section. I also got to know that a 5-year sleeper user User:Rahul9716 accepted the page for creation and 27 days old user User:PCM17092022 created this. I think it's a game and they are Socks may be. It is written Spotlight here, [33] and Brand desk content here, [34] Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sigh, more crypto fluff. No sourcing found, LinkedIN, Facebook and the like. Nothing for GNG. The paid socking? is a concern. The Forbes India ref used doesn't even point to an article about him, it simply goes to the main page. This is all kinds of wrong... Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't find any mention of this person on the Forbes India site, he has a common name it seems, hits on all kinds of people with his name. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO / WP:GNG. Is a WP:ROTM entrepreneur. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creation too looks suspicious. Dympies (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Created by sockfarm advertised on Facebook. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 02:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nuke from orbit, we don't need more UPE crap on nn entrepreneurs. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:05, 8 January 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 Coming. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Remains Raw[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable song: redirect to its album The Coming. The song fails WP:NSONG as it does not have any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Typical mentions of the song are in the context of the album. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. Didn't find any good coverage myself. QuietHere (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Coming. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:31, 7 January 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shan Xing[edit]

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

No sources or any indication of notability. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and China. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this Tang dynasty poem is widely anthologized. It's not much discussed in English, but it is in Chinese, where it's still the subject of published papers (see the bibliography here[35]) and even public controversy![36]. It was also part of an important anthology for Zen monks in Japan, where it was the subject of discussion and interpretation.[37]--Jahaza (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Maybe not the most anthologised/translated poem by Du Mu, but the sources identified by Jahaza demonstrate its resonance both in Chinese and other cultures. Searches also find a recent academic dissertation ("Experiential Metafunctional Analysis of Shan Xing") which discusses its various translations. AllyD (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found by Jahaza. Mccapra (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree per previous comments. Also, there are some sources in English on this poem. For example, as mentioned above Communication Across Borders: Translation & Interpreting published the article "Experiential Metafunctional Analysis of 'Shan Xing' and Its English Versions" (available as PDF download). I also found other scholarly papers in English covering this poem including "Some Remarks on the Earliest Poetry of Guo Moruo (1904-12)" by Barbora Vesterová from Frontiers of Literary Studies in China. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and more sources available from a Google Scholar search for "山行" and "杜牧". Easily passes GNG with Chinese-language sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with all the excellent comments and elaborations above. Zhoudadudu (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources mentioned above. Furthermore, on an unrelated matter, I will note that this is the first deletion discussion of 2023 (created at seven minutes past midnight, UTC). Happy new year! jp×g 16:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with all the reasons above, this page should be kept. Tempest7211 (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand with international sources if possible. For organization, this can be merged / expanded / re-split, but that's not an AFD issue. Archrogue (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really hope this gets expanded, because I found some translations and I think this article can be expanded so much in the future. Equine-man (talk) 21:11, 6 January 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.