< January 09	January 11 >

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cella[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 199th in the world light heavyweight rankings. Subject has also not appeared in a Sherdog top 10 ranking. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 22:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, United States of America, and Missouri. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 22:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

::* Keep. The fight ranking of the subject is not as relevant as the veracity of the citations. It's verifiable that the person is a successful professional mixed martial artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRed176 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE Beccaynr (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter at all that information is verifiable; NSPORT requires the subject to have received SIGCOV in secondary independent RS, which has so far been lacking. JoelleJay (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JRed176: What citations verify that the subject is "successful"? I verified he failed WP:NMMA based on his inability to meet top the 10 rankings required, and the only two citations in the article that aren't databases, are about him being knocked out cold by Uriah Hall. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the fight record on the right side not accurate? JRed176 (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JRed176: His record is 9 wins and 9 losses, with only one victory in a notable promotion. How is that an indication of being successful? ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If he were a baseball player, batting 500 would be stellar. It is not a losing record. Does Wikipedia only grant notability to those with winning records? I don't believe so and there was the one notable victory. I wouldn't say the subject is unsuccessful overall. What is more, it is not a final record. He is still competing. JRed176 (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Success is not a criteria for WP articles. As a new user you might want to check WP:GNG, WP:N, and WP:RS to learn more about how WP works. Papaursa (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails to meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters and lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Databases do not show notability. Since he hasn't fought since 2018, I strongly doubt he's still active and is even more unlikely to improve his MMA notability status. Papaursa (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:43, 16 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!} 22:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Bottman[edit]

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

I declined the PROD because there are two sources that might plausibly meet WP:GNG (see stories in the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer). I do agree with the statements in support of deletion, that it is WP:TOOSOON for academic notability, thus failing WP:SCHOLAR and was unable to find any other independent sources about the subject. Enos733 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Washington. Enos733 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the citation record is strong for a 2015 PhD, it is light for Wikipedia WP:NPROF notability even in a low citation field like mathematics. No other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON at this point in time. In his current trajectory he'd be notable in a decade, but it's crystal ball for that. --Mvqr (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WesSirius (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not yet pass WP:PROF, and the child-prodigy newspaper coverage fails WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:SCHOLAR, I agree it is WP:TOOSOON for this. NMasiha (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:25, 15 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!} 07:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone (rapper)[edit]

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

Reason for Deletion:

The article does not show that the individual is notable/suitable for a page on Wikipedia. This articles references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The page also lacks relevant information about the subject and does not justify a whole page dedicated to the person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ManyVersions (talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'll just add that looking at the page history, this article has been subject to a lot of vandalism in its short life and efforts to delete it but no PRODs. The nominator is accused of creating multiple accounts but no block evasion so I don't think a procedural close is called for.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My quick references' check:

1: "sponsored"

2,12,17,21: "Tyrone" meantioned, but obvs no SIGCOV here

3,4,19,20: "Tyrone" not found on the page at all

5,6,7,8,9,10,11,14,21: press releases / primare sources

13 error

15,16,17 these are ok, I think, but it's not about Tyrone, it's about Tyrone & Warbz and Wiki notability doesn't summarizes. Suitskvarts (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Suitskvarts fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:38, 15 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!} 03:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shotcut (2022 film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE DonaldD23 talk to me 13:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to a source 24 News (published on 24 Dec 2022): the release of the film ‘Shotcut’ has been cancelled .... Insight 3 (talk) 14:13, 27 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!} 22:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for want of reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any sources for this article in Wikipedia library or google. I checked google news and most of the sources were from unreliable websites. Fails GNG.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:28, 11 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!} 03:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ranquet[edit]

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

no reliable sources found , press coverage : one interview on atlantico.fr) Reneza (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and France. Reneza (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:BLP. Total lack of any reliable sources, and certainly no significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted as a military expert in various French media sources, recently as a nuclear weapons commentator. Was a high level academic at a war college (I think). Not sure about this one. Oaktree b (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English sourcing, he's with a think-tank [1] Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 10:24, 11 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!} 22:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Bojović[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No matches in top division. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best sources I can find are Republika, which mentions him once, and FK Radnicki, which also mentions him just the once. Both sources discuss the same event, him getting injured during a match. This is not a hugely notable event in itself and there is no indication that we require a stand-alone article here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:07, 17 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!} 22:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Đorđe Milojević[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No matches in top division. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of clear notability JRed176 (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note - given subject non english language sources are likely - I did a search and was unable to find en sources but that does not mean they don't exist -- Tawker (talk) 16:22, 17 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. Withdrawn per his nomination for the Headies Awards.(non-admin closure) Shoerack (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prettyboy D-O[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Shoerack (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Shoerack (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I find a non-trivial amount of coverage for him. He's mentioned in Billboard for an award I don't recognize [2] and he's covered in Fader [3]. Here also [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources analysis: Ref 1. - It's not his music that was charted. He was just listed among over 200 people nominated for Headies Awards. That source fails WP:NMUSIC#2. Ref 2 and Ref.3 The Fader and Dazeddigital sources are primary sources. They are interview which doesn't count for notability. Ref. Shoerack (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His mixtape peaked Number 1 on iTunes. He was also nominated by The Headies for his album Love is War, all backed by multiple reliable sources. Passes WP:NMUSIC. Wikispendo (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the WP:NMUSIC criteria did he pass? Thank. Shoerack (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me enlighten you.

1. He has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician. (E.g BBC, The Fader, Billboard and more)

2. He has an album on number 1 ITunes music chart.

3. He has been nominated for a major music award (The Headies).

I'm new here but it's very obvious that the Afd nomination was quite pointless. Wikispendo (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:GNG and WP:NBIO with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn per his nomination for Headies Award. Shoerack (talk) 13:41, 11 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) 23:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Meshkin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination. Talk:Brian Meshkin has been nominated for deletion with the following statement, which is clearly meant to request that the article be deleted:

Mr. Meshkin’s page should be deleted because his page is inaccurate as all charges against him have been dismissed “in the interests of justice.” ^[1] As such, the statement that Mr. Meshkin is “a federally indicted entrepreneur” is completely false. To leave Mr. Meshkin’s page up despite the court’s dismissal undermines the credibility of the important work contributors provide to Wikipedia by implicitly endorsing the publication of Mr. Meshkin’s page.

Moreover, Mr. Meshkin’s page should be deleted because his page violates Wikipedia’s One Event and Neutrality Policies. See WP:BLP1E and WP:NPOV. For instance, rather than include categories of Mr. Meshkin typically found in other BLPs, such as “Early Life,” “Personal Life,” “Honors and Awards,” “Influences,” etc., his page almost entirely focuses on one event, namely, the indictment and lawsuit that has since been dismissed. This depiction of Mr. Meshkin is entirely lopsided and ignores the other work he’s done as an executive, elected official, non-profit leader, or father. Thus as it stands, this makes Mr. Meshkin’s Wikipedia page only focused on one event, making his page inherently non-neutral.

Lastly, and for similar reasons as stated above, Mr. Meshkin’s page should be deleted because he does not meet the notability criteria. Wikipedia’s Notability Policy provides that a person is “presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” ^[2] Further, if a person is notable for only one event, Wikipedia generally recommends that an article address the event--not the person. ^[3] This is particularly true where, as here, the individual plays a major role in a minor event. In such cases, “it is not generally appropriate to have separate articles on the person and the event . . . the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage.” ^[4] (emphasis added). As mentioned, nearly half of the sources cited through Mr. Meshkin’s page relates to now-dismissed lawsuit. Therefore, his page should be deleted because the lawsuit was a minor event, negating a standalone Wikipedia page for Mr. Meshkin.

Disclaimer: Mr. Meshkin, a non-notable, living, private citizen, has not been able to remove his page independently. As a result, K&L Gates represents Mr. Meshkin and receives compensation for representing him. KLG-DCPR (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Biology, and California.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm ignoring the of legal text above. I find confirmation he was a businessman, but I don't see anything for GNG. He was a CEO for a few biotech companies and did stuff... Nothing really for sourcing beyond confirmation that he worked for xyz comapny. Oaktree b (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yes I'm aware I gave this a !weak keep decision last time. I've looked at the sourcing again, it's not really enough for GNG. It mostly mentions his legal issues. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it doesn't seem like there is 'legal text above'. The deletion rationale is extensively referenced to wikipedia policy (we may agree or disagree with the nomination on the merits, but they did their homework). The only thing that really comes across as what I think you're talking about is the final sentence which just notes they are an attorney retained by the subject and being compensated for this. That's not even close to a legal threat and looks much more like the account making the WP:PAID declaration as required. All in all I commend the nominating account, someone paid attention to policy and wants to do this right. Whether or not they're accurate in their opinion on the article is something we have to decide here, but I can only hope for a day all people coming to wikipedia to right a regular-sized wrong were this competent. --(loopback) ping/whereis 12:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I generally avoid long discussions of Wikipedia policy here; AfD is about article sourcing first. No valuable sources = no article. The rest is gravy. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. This legal firm is 10/10. I like them, they follow the rules, explain why, explain they are a paid editor doing a service and parcitpate in the community. If this was the worst legal style issues were they would be pleasant. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The fact that it's written in the form of a petition might be off-putting for some – and that's not necessarily unreasonable – but there's no threats and they've clearly done their research. XAM2175 ^(T) 13:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel like statements about the case being dismissed can just be expanded upon, if that's the issue. Anyways, I did a search for sources specifically from before any of the lawsuits happened. I found some interesting coverage from early in his life. He was apparently rather involved in his local political and school community.

Folkenflik, David (October 24, 1996). "The fervor of a young Republican". The Baltimore Sun. pp. 1E, 2E. Retrieved January 10, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.
Williams IV, John-John (April 25, 2010). "Meshkin running for school board". The Baltimore Sun. pp. G1, G10. Retrieved January 10, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.
Burris, Joe (November 28, 2010). "Meshkin seeks input for school board post". The Baltimore Sun. p. G3. Retrieved January 10, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.
Toth, Sara (February 16, 2012). "Fractious debate over middle-school vote reveals board schism". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved January 10, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.
Burris, Joe (July 13, 2014). "Meshkin reflects on school board". The Baltimore Sun. pp. G1, G8. Retrieved January 10, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.
Corey, Mary (December 20, 1992). "Earthly Angels". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved January 10, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.
Pettitt, Jeniece (September 7, 2016). "The genetic test that can help fix America's opioid painkiller addiction". CNBC. Retrieved January 10, 2023.

I do find it somewhat amusing that he claims to be a private citizen after having multiple feature articles about him in The Baltimore Sun going back decades, let alone all the other more recent stuff. Silver seren^C 05:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete and possibly merge to articles on the company. In terms of notability the subject is an edge case. I don't really feel local stories about a school board candidate really clear notability on their own. The criminal charges probably do, but in that case we're at BLP1E like the nomination points out and especially weak because others at the company were charged. With a borderline case and clear indication it causes distress to a BLP subject I do think we can toss the bio article and mention the legal background at appropriate articles. --(loopback) ping/whereis 12:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and BLPREQUESTSDELETE. There isn't much to go on for an independent article. I think we are better off without it. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. This is oddly the third time in 3 weeks this sort of stuff has come up Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No clear evidence of sufficient notability to warrant an independent Wikipedia article JRed176 (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:SIGCOV. Besides being one big BLP violation, people who finance or even manage companies are not automatically notable, and the sourcing is terrible (LinkedIn, and whole sentences not sourced at all). Bearian (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a broad interpretation of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE; we haven't heard from the subject himself. Notability is borderline. I very much appreciate Silver seren's effort, which demonstrates the impact of paywalls and of the lack of online archives for older newspaper content now that Google has slashed most of the content out of its newspaper archive and Highbeam has been taken away, and if there were anyone here making a keep argument, I'd have filled out the biography using those sources and anything else I could find, and severely cut back the WP:UNDUE material on legal accusations and processes, so that there was a better basis for reevaluating. But there isn't, and a case has been made by KLG-DCPR that Meshkin himself would prefer deletion. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see Silver seren's points about the subject having some level of previous public standing, and the suggestions that notability could potentially be established, but in my mind the balance of coverage at the present time places the article within the scope of WP:BLP1E and I'm prepared to accept that the nomination by counsel is within the spirit of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. XAM2175 ^(T) 13:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, with the event itself not being a notable event, and there being nothing to merge to. If we isolate the event content, the real biography content and available sourcing don't satisfy WP:NBASIC either. —Alalch E. 09:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ See Scott Schwebke, Charges Dropped Against Irvine Bioscience Company Founder in Alleged $3.5 million Kickback Scheme, The Orange County Register (Updated Dec. 30, 2022, 11:40 AM), https://www.ocregister.com/2022/12/29/charges-dropped-against-irvine-bioscience-company-founder-in-alleged-3-5-million-kickback-scheme/.
^ See WP:BASIC.
^ See WP:1E.
^ WP:1E

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!} 22:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Đurović[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Problems with sources (possibly confusing different players) starting from birth date to the actual career. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:09, 11 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. and Salt. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TolaniBaj[edit]

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

Non-notable reality show participant who has played some minor roles in a handful of Nigerian films. Fails WP:NACTOR Shoerack (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Shoerack (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows (Big Brother Naija) and music video productions. Passes WP:NACTOR and WP:NBIO with significant coverage in multiple reliable Nigerian sources. ––WikiSpendo(talk) 10:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Participation in Big Brother Naija does not confer notability. You do need to provide evidence of her significant coverages in multiple independent, reliable sources. Gossips and interviews do not count towards notability. Shoerack (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terseer Kiddwaya, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cross Okonkwo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo Mobor Akpofure and several others in the archive. Regards. Shoerack (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:NACTOR. The clear, longstanding consensus has been that merely participating or appearing in a reality show, advertisement, beauty contest, or Music video does not confer any notability; the practice has been only to retain articles about the winner, place, and show of a major contest. (A person can gain fame by appearing in a notorious TV advertising campaign, e.g., "Rollover mom", but that is extremely rare.) There's exactly zero evidence that he passes as an actor or "influencer." I would not oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Fails WP:GNG and does not pass any notability standard that I can find. I removed the "speedy" and chose to comment based on this discussion, but it's pretty clear to me that the subject is not notable. The previous deletion was closed as a "soft delete" based on minimal participation. I think we're headed to the same place but likely with a more firm result.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is only known for a single event. She doesn't have a career to speak of at this moment and none of the films she's starred in are notable. Maybe in a few years she would starred in prominent films and garnered media coverage. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT both this namespace and Tolani Baj. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT Wikipedia is not a means for promotion; that is what social media is for. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 03:07, 17 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!} 22:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Janković (footballer, born 1996)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would agree with Pelmeen, does not satisfy WP:GNG maybe in a few years? Though I'm sure there are a few fans that would disagree.

Jonchache (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:09, 11 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!} 22:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

La Min Htwe[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO standards for notability. Delete as per WP:NOTDATABASE. All sources cited currently are primary sources or databases and article as been blanked and redirected several times, but no improvement or new sources have been added in attempts to revert. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 21:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 21:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe this fails notability WP:GNG

Jonchache (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Taung Tan (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough at present JRed176 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:TOOSOON (he has yet to play a national game). Bearian (talk) 15:26, 13 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!} 21:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Panara Chandrashekhar[edit]

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

Not meeting Wikipedia standards of notability, long way from GNG. Seems like a nice enough person, but being a "friendly police officer" alone isn't enough for notability. I don't find any further sources other than the ones given here, which seem flowery. Oaktree b (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG IMO a clear case, I could find nothing on this individual. I'm glad he was friendly though :D

Jonchache (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN junior officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals : an independent and notable work , The person has created or played a major role~~

~~DigitalmishraG (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)~~sockstrike Girth Summit _(blether) 14:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no sign of WP:GNG being met. He is not a creative professional (if a police officer writes a song, that doesn't change his profession), and even if he were, you'd need to look at the entire criterion, not just a snippet: 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 --bonadea contributions talk 12:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above and for lack of multiple, reliable sources. There's exactly one incident, which implicates WP:BLP1E, for when he wrote a song about honey traps. We have decided that such an incident does not make a person notable. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established. NMasiha (talk) 18:13, 13 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!} 21:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Dyson[edit]

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

This guy actually is mentioned in a lot of news, but always in the form of "he said something in response to some police-related event that happened recently", almost never any coverage about him personally. The only exception I see is that one time he rode a bicycle for a long way as a charity thing, which is... also questionably notable. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 21:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, and England. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 21:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject appears to be a police officer who does a good job and is occasionally quoted by local media. Notability is not shown by the limited coverage the subject has received. Sorely fails WP:GNG and clearly does not meet WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the West Yorkshire Police. He's not notable by himself, is usually the media contact for whatever event/crime/thing the police are working on. Oaktree b (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN relatively junior officer. No point in a redirect to his force, where he isn't (and shouldn't be) mentioned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough to necessitate an independent article JRed176 (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable career that fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a good officer, but that does not make him notable. NMasiha (talk) 18:43, 14 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!} 21:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Creek Community Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable K-12 school. No information on the page, other than sports that are sponsored by the school and a new campus. No references at all to speak of on the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It been around awhile, shows up on searches pretty easily, exists on maps. Why not just keep it, if it closes its doors one day delete it then? This one seems to keep the recent changes reviewers busy at least.

Jonchache (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of notability. All I've found are some media too local to rely on. Suitskvarts (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Unfortunately fails WP:GNG. NMasiha (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:56, 16 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MS-DOS 7[edit]

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

Microsoft never released an operating system called "MS-DOS 7" and cited sources are very weak (the Microsoft link fails to even mention "MS-DOS 7"), do not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources (the "ctyme" links have a very clear bias), and much of the article is simply original research. Chungy (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Skynxnex (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick google book search finds multiple books and other reliable sources referring to the version of DOS in Windows 95 and 98 7.0/7.1:

Forensic Computing: A Practitioner's Guide

Using MS-DOS 6.22

Popular Science Aug 1993

Special Edition Using Microsoft Windows

A few more in archive.org:

The Windows 95 bug collection : fixes and work-arounds of nearly 1,000 pesky problems when running Windows 95

MS-DOS 6 explained

DOS World Volume 25

Windows 98 explained

So, clean up any original research as needed but my sense is there's reliable enough sources to document many of the things in the article as-is and it's definitely the common name for a real thing that subject-matter people see as a distinct thing. Skynxnex (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – MS-DOS 7 and later MS-DOS 7.1 are official components of Windows 95/98. Even if not released as a stand-alone operating system, they were fully supported by Microsoft. The user can create MS-DOS 7 or 7.1 boot disks (floppy disks) from within the Windows Explorer with just using built-in features (right click and format with bootable option). There is no need for any unofficial 3rd party extraction tools or similar. Theses floppy disks could then be used to boot into a normal MS-DOS 7 or 7.1 operating system environment. This was used primarily for trouble shooting, very similar to the Recovery Console or Windows PE environment in later NT-based versions of Windows. Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That it wasn't released as a standalone OS doesn't mean it's not a notable component of Windows (and a continuation of DOS). Those earlier versions of Windows were glorified graphical frontends for the underlying DOS in many ways, so it's not like it was an optional program. With some of the sources above in mind, the article's subject meets WP:NSOFT. - Aoidh (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's a "thing", but DOS 6.22 was the last stand-alone version sold at retail. This is a sub-unit of Windows programs, should be merged to "Windows 9x". Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GNOME Shell is just a sub-unit of GNOME; there's no requirement of WP:NSOFT that software must run as a standalone to warrant an article. - Aoidh (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Skynxnex and others. Notability established by reliable sources and even part of an OS can have its stand-alone article. Pavlor (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is notable sub-component of Windows-95. --Mvqr (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thea article is well-cited in areas though not everywhere. It could use more sources. JRed176 (talk) 21:59, 11 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!} 21:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farshad Yousefi[edit]

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

Business may be notable but subject/founder is not. Meatsgains^(talk) 19:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the sources in the article are about the company Yousefi founded, Fintor, not himself. Fintor might be notable, although I've not looked at those sources in enough depth to properly assess reliability and significance of coverage - but notability is not inherited. There are then some interviews with Yousefi which seem to be promotional pieces (and even then, there's not that many of them). So on the sources in the article, I don't see this passing GNG. Similar kinds of things come up searching Google/Google News, nothing to suggest notability. WJ94 (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Iran, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG not meant, the subject has a good potential though but currently he don't seems to meet the notability standard.Princek2019 (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject doesn't meet notability standards to be a stand-alone article. JRed176 (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Suspected sock, struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. WJ94 (talk) 15:50, 16 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. If you would like to work on improving this article in Draft space, let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yunus Ahmad[edit]

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

Lacks coverage in reliable sources. The article cites two sources and one of which is an offline publication that cannot be verified. The subject fails NPOL and GNG easily. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, A simple Google Search hits 13,400,000 results for Yunus Ahmad's native language. He is the Secretary General of Islami Andolan Bangladesh, third largest political party in Bangladesh by votes.–MinisterOfReligion ^(Talk) 19:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- It received 1,236,983 out of 80,259,172 votes and won zero seats but yes technically they were third. Notability is not inherited either way. Odd, I barely see 40 thousand results when I search his name in his native language. Please feel free to add any of the sources to the article to demonstrate notability. As Article creator you could have added those sources when you created the article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

40K results is enough for fulfil the WP:POLITICIAN,

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.–MinisterOfReligion ^(Talk) 20:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just counting up the number of hits you get for a person's name in a Google search does not in and of itself fulfill any notability criterion. A Google search, for instance, does not easily distinguish between WP:GNG-worthy reliable sources that count as support for notability and self-published primary sources that do not; a Google search cannot easily distinguish between relevant hits for the person you're talking about and irrelevant hits for some completely different person with the same name; a Google search cannot easily distinguish between sources that are actually about him and sources that just happen to glancingly mention his name; and on and so forth. So you have to actually show specific examples of what you believe to be GNG-building sources, and just throwing a number around accomplishes absolutely nothing. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "one of which is an offline publication that cannot be verified" but offline sources can be verified. Jahaza (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, I cannot verify this specific offline source.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails wp:GNG. I have not found any (except for passing mention and routine coverage) reliable sources in both Bengali and English. 'Our Charmonai' isn't a reliable source. There are lots of people named Yunus Ahmed in Bangladesh. Hence the search count is hitting 40k+. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 20:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I can understand why the author, Owais Al Qarni (aka MinisterOfReligion), might want to keep their creation, there is no hard evidence of notability. When I search Google, their notoriously inflated estimate tells me there are "about 1,020" results for his native name. Paging through them, there are actually only about 75 hits. Choosing 15 from reliable publishers, I found other versions of the already cited brief mention of his election as party secretary general (4), and the listing of his name among many speakers at various events (11). In no case was there any biographical info other than his title, or any analysis, evaluation, or interpretation of anything he said. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The first reference is a trivial listing that is not significant coverage. The second offline ref might be decent (or not) but per GNG or NBASIC multiple is usually needed. Unfortunately, my WP:BEFORE mainly found trivial mentions or short/routine coverage that does not seem to establish notability, e.g., 1, 2, 3. The quantity of sources might be impressive but WP:GOOGLEHITS is irrelevant to notability. However, do ping me if more sources demonstrating WP:SIGCOV are found. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 09:27, 13 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) 23:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ABM Sohel Rashid[edit]

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

No improvement since last nomination. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First nomination- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. B. M. Sohel Rashid. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Poetry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The English-language Daily Sun – a passing mention in a list of actors – is representative of the Bengali reliable sources: Risingbd.com, Jugantor, Kaler Kantho, and Dhaka Times 24. Rokomari.com is a book sales website, reliable for publication details but not for establishing notability. The remaining sources: Red Times, Kavya Kishor, bdnyalanews.com, and sahityabarta.com, have no reputation for accuracy or fact checking. The deepest one, wishing him happy birthday, is published by a non-notable organization (Kavya Kishor) that he's on the steering committee of. Without significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know, ABM Sohel Rashid is a Bangladeshi Actor. If anyone want to see his acting clips, it will possible to show. I'm also know, His not news coverage count of lots. So, now everything is depending on Wikipedian. But it true, He is the actor of more than 450 Bangladeshi Movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viet146 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply being in movies does not meet WP:GNG. Significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources is required. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:25, 14 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!} 21:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nnooo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG with the only sources of note being interviews, not secondary sources. These interviews were presented in the last AfD in an apparent misunderstanding of policy. There is little about the studio itself, only about their games. Notability is not inherited. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable company, page does not contain RSs and any would seem unlikely to exist. Fails to establish notability, fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find an independent, secondary, source with more than a trivial mention. Fails WP:GNG - GA Melbourne (talk) 14:46, 16 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 IAR Draftify. Disruptive move removes us from processes around draftification. Any established editor is welcome to mainspace this, if they believe there's merit, via the normal processes. We don't need to give them seven days of attention Star Mississippi 18:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greg O’Gallagher[edit]

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

Promotionally written biography that lacks independent sources. The individual is active in different areas, but is not notable in any of them; the sourcing doesn't show that WP:BASIC is met, he doesn't meet WP:NACTOR as a Youtuber or as an actor, and all coverage of his business activities is PR type blurbs. bonadea contributions talk 17:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. bonadea contributions talk 17:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass WP:BASIC; is a purely promotional biography receiving no significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. --ARose Wolf 18:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources don't establish notability. Worth noting that this was a rejected draft that got moved into article space anyway. - MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 10 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 War Games. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Devious (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFF. Non notable production for this unofficial fan film. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not warrant article at all. Thank you and have a good day.Tvshowoflife (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvshowoflife Friendly ping so you can check comments below and reconsider your vote (to redirect, perhaps). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I am sorry I was not aware of the War Games despite liking Doctor Who a lot. Thank you and have a good day.m Tvshowoflife (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It does arguably have some notability in that in it is probably the most discussed Doctor Who fan production and featured Jon Pertwee's final appearance as the Doctor. However I am doubtful that is enough for an article on its own and some of what is in the article is not particularly encyclopaedic material. Perhaps a mention in the Home Media section of The War Games would be better? Dunarc (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. "upcoming fan-made story" with an entry that appears not to have been updated since creation over 10 years ago? A redirect would be superior to pure deletion, per User:Dunarc. The mention needs to be based on some reliable source actually mentioning this, too. I'd be fine with redirect to The War Games if we can find a reliable ref that connects those topics (the ref in the article has rotten, but I derotted it to https://web.archive.org/web/20150805010323/http://www.denofgeek.com/dvd-bluray/8198/doctor-who-the-war-games-dvd-review and it does briefly mention this, so if we think denofgeek is reliable, I guess that will be ok to use). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good option - I'll see if I can find any other sources out there. Dunarc (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The War Games. I was leaning delete because I couldn't find significant coverage of the film anywhere, but the den of geek review of The War Games points out that it's in the DVD release for that serial, so it could be worth mentioning that somewhere in the The War Games article, and then this would be a useful redirect. I'll actually go add that to the article now in the home release section. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The War Games. As a fan, I would love for Doctor Who fan films to be included on Wikipedia, but I think it's obvious that only completed ones should be on here. Perhaps it can be re-introduced once the films are completed. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:32, 14 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prosper Masquelier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced BLP of a person who has no other good sources I could find online (except for one French language one that seems to fail WP:RS). Previous AFD discussion from 2011 decided keep, but I do not believe this person passes GNG. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 15:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Television. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 15:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore content: After MichaelQSchmidt saved this article during the last AfD (as he was known for back in the day), someone deleted it all in 2013 and until 2016 made it to what you pretty much see today, sans the YouTube links. Information needs to be restored by the last known good revision with all citations. Mike Allen 15:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:MikeAllen, thank you. I restored the version to before the disruption you noted; in addition, I blocked a couple of the accounts responsible for the mess this article was in. Whether it is now good enough to say, I don't know--I think the coverage is very thin. User:TheManInTheBlackHat, please have another look. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I'm incredibly sorry, I didn't look that far back in the revision history. Looks fine now, I'd say it passes GNG based on the linked sources. My search was in English, hence the lack of French sources I could find. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:TheManInTheBlackHat, no need to apologize: quite understandable. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Honestly, I wouldn't have looked at the history if I hadn't seen Michael's name in the AfD. The article has had trouble for ten years and probably wouldn't gotten restored if you hadn't nomiated it for AfD. All is good. :) Mike Allen
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and France. Skynxnex (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the above discussion. I think what's in the article is enough to meet WP:GNG, though I can see why it was nominated since the recent activity doesn't do the previous state of the article any justice. - Aoidh (talk) 19:34, 16 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 Artemis Fowl characters. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fowl family[edit]

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

While the main character of the Artemis Fowl series may be notable, nothing in this article and my BEFORE suggests that his extended family (series minor characters that appear here and there) is. I see some plot summaries here and there, but nothing that suggests this grouping is notable. Some merger to List of Artemis Fowl characters might be considered I guess. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of characters. Pretty simple case of simple, plausible redirect becoming a fancruft article. Dronebogus (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Artemis Fowl characters The only characters that don't already show up at the target are extremely minor. Joyous! | Talk 03:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Artemis Fowl characters: I could not find any reliable sources that specifically discuss the Fowl family. Furthermore, there were many false positives involving waterfowl and actual families by that name. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Artemis Fowl characters. Searches didn't find WP:SIGCOV that discusses this family. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:37, 16 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 Artemis Fowl characters. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Butler family (Artemis Fowl)[edit]

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

This is effectively a "list of few minor characters related to the Artemis Fowl series". The article is just a plot summary and I can't find any WP:SIGCOV-meeting discussion of this group that goes beyond a plot summary. Some merging to List of Artemis Fowl characters can be considered, perhaps. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Artemis Fowl characters - Both of the characters that actually have any importance to the series are already covered extensively on the main character list already, and there is nothing to indicate that they are notable enough to warrant a split into a separate article. While the article title is a pretty unlikely search term, they are listed on the Butler family disambiguation page, so as long as that's there, a Redirect would be fine. Rorshacma (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Artemis Fowl characters: A search using the usual databases resulted in no usable sources being found. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Artemis Fowl characters. A search didn't find WP:SIGCOV for this subject. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:35, 16 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. There is no consensus about creating a redirect from this page title to a target article so I will leave that editing decision up to editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nike ONE[edit]

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

Two years ago I've redirected it with the edit summary of "no evidence of notability for this fictional object, sources are passing/WP:PLOT, redirecting to Gran Turismo 4 (parent game". It was restored now with no justification, which is why I generally prefer PRODs/AfDs to redirecting (or unredirecting) without a discussion. Well, anyway, now we can have a proper discussion about this. I, of course, suggest re-redirecting this due to failure of WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Video games, and Motorsport. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with your original rationale, but I don't believe it is worth redirecting since it is unlikely to be a viable search term (page views have been in the single digits for at least the last 3 months). The sources are extremely lacking and there is no way this could reasonably be expected to pass the GNG. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It would be absurd to have redirects for cars in video games. It would be like redirecting B Dasher (which was deleted in this case) to Mario Kart. Sure, there's a couple news articles about the B Dasher, but it would still fail GNG and then a redirect would be undue. Same thing for this. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Why? I Ask Take a look at the Template:Gran Turismo series, there are others, although they generally look better, possibly notable, unlike this one. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's different in that it has full length pages; you still wouldn't want to redirect every concept car from GT to the game pages (such as those listed here).
    I also disagree most meet GNG. Take Ferrari Vision Gran Turismo where every source is between two days and fails WP:SUSTAINED. I think certain real-life cars such as the Fittipaldi EF7 are fine, though, to an extent. Some of the singly-made concept cars might also fail GNG. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Why? I Ask By all means, start an AfD for the Ferrari one and ping me. I think you may be right. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmm... There may be a valid redirect in this case with Vision Gran Turismo (which I initially skipped over thinking it was just another car). I think a better discussion would be to talk about that page. Do you think there's any chance of that surviving an AfD? I could see it. Note that NIKE One still wouldn't be redirect-able there, though. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fussed if we either delete or redirect. Could perhaps Merge to the relevant section under Gran Turismo 4. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not notable enough for a separate article. The car is briefly mentioned at GT4 but it's unsourced so if there's any notable information about the collaboration with Nike it could be merged there. Suonii180 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't independently meet the GNG, now or then. Indifferent on redirecting. I can envision adding a valid passing mention in the parent article, and I can also see it being scrubbed from the article in a valid cleanup attempt too. But if redirected, it should be a "delete+redirect" situation to stop the sloppy recreation efforts. Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Nothing has changed, other than the redirect was un-redirected, which, if it continues, can be dealt with by education, semi-protection, or other regular editing that doesn't rise to the level of needing deletion. 5225C's rationale is reasonable, and I really appreciate looking at the pageview history, but that isn't a criterion under WP:R#DELETE. The closest is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, which this is not. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not mentioned in the target, though. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...Because you just removed it? That's pretty classic WP:DE, wouldn't you say, and pretty hard to WP:AGF about. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, because listing the cars of a racing game is WP:GAMECRUFT. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree that the content should have been removed, but Jclemens is right to say that it was improper to do so while this discussion was underway. At the least you should have noted in your comment that the reason the subject wasn't mentioned in the target was because you had removed it as cruft. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not wrong to remove it while under discussion; that's arguably the best time to remove it. Why would it matter if it was removed now or later if the result is the same? That's the entire point of WP:BOLD. And either way, I was still right. It currently is not mentioned at the target, and I mentioned my reasoning under the page history. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, but the fact that the content was on the page during the discussion was material to the outcome and relevant to some !votes. Like I said, at the least it should have been mentioned here. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, but I doubt it would matter either way. You shouldn't base your votes on whether it's simply mentioned at the target. If it were truly encyclopedic and worth preserving, then most would vote to add the information to the parent if it were missing. That's obviously not the case. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I've just reverted your deletion because it was the status quo and relevant to this discussion. Does that make your statement false? If so, please refactor your statement that it does not appear at the target article. If not, then please concede that it was improper of you to state its absence in the way that you did--that is, two minutes after you had removed it yoruself. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        You're going to revert it simply because someone removed it in a way you didn't like and not based on the merit of it being there? That sounds something like the WP:DE you've been accusing of to me? Why? I Ask (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Would you please stop WP:IDHT about your WP:DE? The issue isn't the content, it's your conduct. By re-reverting my restoration of the material without discussion, you demonstrate a commitment to WP:BATTLE conduct. Multiple editors have called you on your deceptive response here when your immediately prior edit had been to remove the mention in question. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I mean, multiple editors support it too. The discussion is obviously heading toward removing the page and potentially the mention as well. This isn't me battling, it's being bold and fixing something that'll probably happen. Sure, I should have mentioned I removed it. But would it matter? It's going to be removed anyway, and, honestly, no person should vote solely to redirect on the basis of it being in the article; if it deserves a redirect, a merge and then a redirect is due. I understand that you want to make sure editors are engaging in fair and balanced discussion, and that's fair. But, honestly, your constant WP:WIKILAWYERING (this isn't an isolated instance from what I've seen) rather than reading what consensus there is (to remove it) is tiring. We're talking about a single unsourced sentence that WP:GAMECRUFT specifically forbids (whether you agree with the MOS or not). Why? I Ask (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        It's going to be removed anyway is a very poor reason. Why not be patient and let the discussion run its course? I find this constant hiding behind WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO as an excuse to disrespect discussion frustrating. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 22:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I mean, why not just go ahead and do it when the discussion has a (in my opinion) clear outcome? Different philosophies, different views (but I think mine is better). Why? I Ask (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirection to Gran Turismo 4. The mention there was removed in this recent edit [5] by Why? I Ask, and so such a redirect would not be suitable. I think better to merge (presumably to Gran Turismo 4 or Vision Gran Turismo), but I don't have a strong view re deleting or keeping. A7V2 (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merging would create a redirect by default, though? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 22:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney: Arguably yes, arguably no. It should be clear enough from my !vote that I oppose a redirect if this car isn't mentioned at the target as that would be unhelpful for anyone searching this or clicking a link to it. But if a sentence or two is merged then a redirect would be fine. A7V2 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – As mentioned in the deletion nomination, sources are passing/WP:PLOT. I do not believe a merge is suitable since the content would remain unencyclopaedic no matter where we put it. I also oppose redirection per A7V2. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This mischaracterizes policy. Plot is fine as long as it doesn't become all that can be talked about in an article, so upmerging plot elements to the parent topic that does have, for example, reception, etc. sections is always preferable to deletion per WP:DEL. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yet no other cars are discussed in Gran Turismo 4. Seems like it would be pretty arbitrary to include a select one and then no others. If your logic holds, I can create an article based on entirely plot sources for any trivial aspect of the game, have it challenged at AfD, and then get the content merged to the parent article, even though the content would never have been included otherwise. Since that is obviously not the case, I have much more confidence in my interpretation of policy. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's policy: non-notable content is fine in notable articles. Please see WP:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Other content guidelines still apply; namely WP:GAMECRUFT #7 which literally specifies vehicles. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        GAMECRUFT is part of WP:MOS which determines how we present content, not what content can or cannot be included in a Wikipedia article. People gaming MOS to try and ban stuff they don't like when they can't get it into WP:NOT is nothing new, and can be safely disregarded, because the scope of an MOS precludes that guidance. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not a matter of whether or not I like it, it's simply a matter of fact that the content that would be merged in this case would never be added to the article by any reasonable editor. Sergecross73 has correctly pointed out that the MOS specifically lists this sort of content as innapropriate. The MOS also directs you to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, MOS is not relevant in a deletion discussion because it only applies to how we present content. If something is to never appear in Wikipedia, that goes in NOT, which is policy. The MOS is neither policy nor guideline, but something entirely different. WP:NOTGUIDE is the actual policy, which expects coverage of notable fictional elements that would be forbidden by MOS:VG. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        It literally says avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context. That's what this is; a gameplay item (i.e., vehicle). Why? I Ask (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe not the best usage of PLOT, but the general sentiment still remains - it's certainly within the realm of valid editorial discretion to decide it's not worth name dropping some random car names in a racing game. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, but this is an AfD discussion, not a discussion of the target article: The decision to merge/redirect here doesn't impose any editorial burden on the target article--the content can still be deleted from the target article and the redirect sent to MfD if that happens. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - As far as I've seen, we're just talking about a single unsourced sentence that amounts to "The car was in the video game." Unless you had bigger plans in mind, there's little at stake with retaining a redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 22:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not arguing against retaining a redirect. That was the status quo. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Sounds like needlessly "kicking it down the road" and wasting the time of MfD participants if this AFD's sentiment is anything to go by... Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG outside of the game itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gamecrufty trivia, and in the custom WP:VG/RS search engine, it's has got a single hit: "Gran Turismo 4 finished": "The bundle, which costs an astonishing 33,600 Yen (€243), features a copy of the game, a Nike t-shirt, the aforementioned trainers, an unlockable "Nike One" concept car in the game (you need an EyeToy to unlock this, as the process involves taking a picture of the back of the box with the camera while playing GT4) and a padded black aluminium case to carry the lot in". The other results is a gameguide and a mention in the comment section. Not worth redirecting, as it shouldn't be mentioned in the parent article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect. This is the quintessential definition of gamecruft. No mention is needed in the parent article and there's no reason not to remove it already (WP:NOTBURO). Axem Titanium (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Jclemens that removing the mention, and then immediately arguing that no mention exists is a WP:DE issue, not a WP:NOTBURO issue. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 22:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read what you linked. People agree it should not be mentioned. I remove mention. Boom, no redirect necessary. It's a very simple process. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for it being hard to take these consecutive edits in good faith (especially when it was not even close to unanimous at the time) - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 22:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the first time mentions of cars (and redirects to their game page) have been deleted. There also isn't really a point to saying WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP when you agree it should be deleted (thus no page history to save) and there's consensus not to mention it on the page. I'm done arguing about this. I've already conceded I could've worded it better, but it is, frankly, stupid to continue arguing about whether or not it was in good faith when clearly my goal was to improve the article and not to waste time. Clearly that had the opposite effect when one user would rather draw out this discussion with "rules" instead of commenting on the merits of a redirect or mention in the article. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread WP:NOTBURO. We don't need two processes to remove a piece of obvious gamecruft from its own article and in the parent article. Just one will suffice. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:NOTBURO covers someone expressing a position in the discussion, which Jclemens did, and then Why? I Ask maki an edit in direct opposition to that position and then immediately arguing against him? I also very strongly disagree with yet another instance of an involved participant in a discussion determining consensus before the discussion is closed. It's frankly disrespectful to opposing viewpoints. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 00:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please, WP:DROPTHESTICK. It's pretty obvious where this is headed. Like I pointed out, in all of WP:VG/RS the Nike ONE car is mentioned once. It shouldn't be mentioned in the parent article and there is no redirect needed. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Please read NOTBURO." "What part of NOTBURO is relevant here?" "Please DROPTHESTICK." Lmfao, whatever. Keep moving the goalposts. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be arguing for arguing's sake is all. I'm not holding you back though, argue away. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Jclemens. Redirects are cheap. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 22:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[6] Here's an additional source that can be added to the parent article if desired. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a News24 subscriber? Or went for a trial subscription? I can't read the article without filling in my credit card information. A Google Lens image search brings me to the designer's website. The third image from the top, including the mirrored Nike swoosh. The headline of the News24 article is "Just do it! Will the Nike One car become a reality in 2022?" I'm curious to see what the article says that can make it notable to be mentioned. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:49, 17 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lyubov Sobol[edit]

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

not notable per politicians (she is actually not a politician), nor as an activist or a journalist. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm very surprised to see this nominated. Passes WP:GNG:

Keep: As User:CT55555 said above. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I totally agree with 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ and CT55555: Sobol is currently one of the most active anti-Putin political activists, so it is incredibly surprising for me to see this page nominated for deletion. She falls under the WP:GNG criteria, and her political activity was covered in numerous acknowledged media. ThegaBolt (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 14 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) Enos733 (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Eidelman[edit]

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

I've read the sources on the person and found it lack notability and WP:Verify. It's pure WP:Mill and so on here, but not notable person LusikSnusik (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Seems notable for a range of connected things, almost more like a WP:BASIC pass than a clear WP:GNG:

She seems like an expert in Russian propaganda. Quoted twice in this academic paper:

SPLIDSBOEL HANSEN, F. When Russia Wages War in the Cognitive Domain. Journal of Slavic Military Studies, [s. l.], v. 34, n. 2, p. 181–201, 2021. DOI 10.1080/13518046.2021.1990562. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=154226328&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 10 jan. 2023.

Likewise, she's quoted twice here: Mired in War, Putin Presses Patriotism Lessons on Schools. Bloomberg.com, [s. l.], p. :N.PAG, 2022. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=158884519&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 10 jan. 2023.

Her book is featured here, and while this is an interview, it still helps establish notability: ::https://neweasterneurope.eu/2018/12/11/propaganda-works-interview-tamara-eidelman/

Her Honorary title of Russia seems verified here so I think that's maybe an WP:ANYBIO pass CT55555(talk) 16:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - her honorary title "Teacher of the year" falls under notability criteria (see WP:TEACHER or more general WP:BIO). I also looked through some recent sources in Russian, she was covered by BBC and other reliable media when Russia included her to the list of foreign agents (e.g., [7], [8] or [9]). ThegaBolt (talk) 17:06, 13 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pavlović[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, zero prose or sources of any kind, only sourced to WorldFootball database profile Snowflake91 (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovenia. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best I can find is Siol and RTVSLO, neither of which confer any notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 15 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) WJ94 (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Sampson[edit]

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

He competed at the 1972 Olympics but did not rank high enough to win a medal and I couldn't find other significant competitions that he had participated in. Could be redirected to Archery at the 1972 Summer Olympics – Men's individual. Suonii180 (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and New Zealand. Suonii180 (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ I think, unless editors such as Paora can find any additional sources? There are a few sources out there and a hint that there's probably coverage in paper-based news media sources (at least one photo with caption that's clearly from a newspaper). The difficulty will be accessing those sources as they're unlikely to have been digitised. Redirection could either be to the event or to New Zealand at the 1972 Summer Olympics - I think I'd probably favour that over the event but I don't have any overwhelming preference. On the whole though I'd say the chances are that sources exist, so a redirection is probably preferable if those sources can't be found. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Blue Square Thing: Photo with caption appears to have come from the Gisborne Photo News monthly serial, which happens to have been digitized, specifically the February 1971 Issue (#200), page 37. Page in question can be found here. Not a whole lot of content there, sadly, and after spending some time looking for further sources, I think you're right that if any exist, they are unlikely to be available online. AddWittyNameHere 00:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now an obvious keep following Paora's work. New Zealanders regularly turn out to be much more interesting than people can often imagine! Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ as per ATD and Blue Square Thing above. There is a clear and obvious redirect target and this gives future editors the chance to find sources. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per good expansion work. Looking good! MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following expansion. Paora (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after WP:HEY by Paora.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Impressive work by Paora. @MarchOfTheGreyhounds: In case they want to change their opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will change! MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 00:35, 17 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!} 08:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Petković (footballer, born 1997)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:08, 11 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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kai O'Keeffe[edit]

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

No notability found online, and one independent source in the article is one line in a local newspaper. Fram (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Fram (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have been created as part of an extended burst of dozens of SPORTCRIT-failing new pages on EFL players, which will all need to be addressed. It would be helpful to have some sort of notice about the SPORTCRIT requirements pop up when creating an article on a footballer, as a reminder to editors who don't follow the football wikiproject or NSPORT or VP. JoelleJay (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Google News just has a bunch of match reports from his club. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Move to draft space, the whole point of draft space is a place to start articles like these. Should have been done instead of going to AfD. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as WP:TOOSOON Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 16 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Linguist111 (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Kaufman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I've declined a WP:G4 request on this—the text isn't at all identical, let alone 'substantially identical', to the previously-deleted article—but every argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valery Kaufman still stands. There's still no indication that this person is notable by Wikipedia's specific definition of the term, and none of the issues which led to the previous deletion have been addressed. ‑ Iridescent 03:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Russia. ‑ Iridescent 03:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start the discussion with a specific rule or criterion of importance that must be met by a person from the modeling business in order to write a Wikipedia article about them. Is this WP:BIO rule correct? --JukoFF (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Just the sort of fancruft which gets churned out for these non-notable individuals.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- onel5969 I don't understand why you're referring to a general significance criterion (WP:GNG) if the significance of all articles about people in Wikipedia is governed by the more precise and specifically created rule WP:BIO? I have no difficulty in justifying a person's compliance with the rule I mentioned above. However, if this does not suit you (perhaps you are not well acquainted with the criteria of significance or for some other reason) I can also justify the encyclopedic significance of the person by the broader rule WP:GNG to which you refer. But it is not very rational, still, it seems to me correct to refer to the rule WP:BIO, which is created for such cases. JukoFF (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She might be notable per Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER #1 ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"). However, at least some references on the page (I did not check all) seems "fake". For example, it says "In 2015, she was recognized as the best Russian model by Glamour magazine" with a reference to [10]. But the posting (a blog) does not support the claim. Other claims on the page indicate that she is just a successful model, which is not enough.My very best wishes (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced the references to the statement that the model was recognized as the 2015 model of the year in Russia. JukoFF (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER (Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions) Victoria's Secret Fashion Show 2015 and Victoria's Secret Fashion Show 2015 are such significant shows that there are separate Wikipedia articles about them. And objectively, these shows were actually the main shows of the year, in which the world's leading models were selected. In addition to this, the article has references to articles about models in ELLE and Vogue magazines, which are the leading core magazines in the modeling industry. JukoFF (talk) 05:57, 31 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!} 04:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Coverage in Elle that seems substantial, then lesser-so coverage in Teen Vogue and a few other fashion mags. The Victoria's Secret shows would be notable events. I can't google them at work (silly firewall), but I think it's just past notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let’s look at the facts here as this is my so-called specialization: ELLE, which is a fashion magazine, not a lifestyle magazine like Vanity Fair, made more of a point that she may have been dating Jared Leto than her actual career. They give one paragraph about that, recounting her quote as to how she was discovered. They say she was once ranked on models.com’s Top 50 models list (and I will once again use the opportunity to say models.com’s lists are in-fact notable in their own right. When she was on the list they pointed out how Hedi Slimane ostensibly picked her for a Saint Laurent campaign. They said editorials in Vogue Russia, Interview, and W put her on that list. At the time, other campaigns she was in were for DKNY and Coach.). Despite the fact that 4 years before this article, she was actually in ELLE as a model, in a solo editorial called "Pump Up the Volume", they make no mention of this! The now-defunct Victoria's Secret Fashion Show was an annual pop culture event, but that surely isn’t enough to inherently guarantee an article, as 17 other models who had been in the shows from 2010-2018 don’t have articles as we speak. At least one of them was deleted for lack of notability outside of being in the show. I also don’t know why that is only sourced to Fashion Model Directory which should only be used when there are truly no other sources, rather than a magazine. Even still, all you will get from that is a list with photos that confirm the cast of the show. ELLE said the only in-depth interview of her out there is from i-D. 10 questions is not in-depth. So I say all that to say, she’s done notable work but when you can’t verify that without scouring through gossip it’s not worth an article if you have standards. A model who has walked for Balmain, Chanel, Dolce & Gabbana, and other top designers should be independently notable—it shouldn’t be an afterthought to allegedly dating a celebrity. But that’s all sources give here. Trillfendi (talk) 23:26, 17 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 Cum Town. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Adam Friedland Show[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are not secondary nor independent and fail to establish notability. Brycehughes (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Brycehughes (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cum Town: There doesn't appear to be enough significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant its own article yet. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cum Town. Fails WP:WEB per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:36, 14 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 Economy of China#Industry and manufacturing. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Made in China[edit]

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

Basically none of the article is actually about the label "Made in China", and the label itself is probably not notable enough to deserve its own article. Perhaps the page should be redirected something like Industry of China? Mucube (talk • contribs) 01:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mucube (talk • contribs) 01:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Country of origin: The page, in my opinion, should be merged into one with a more general topic, such as Country of origin. The page is filled with content related to the industry of China in general and not the label itself. Some content, such as the first few sections and "Made in Hong Kong" are pertinent, and could be placed into a possible "By country" or "In China" section in the other page. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:57, 27 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!} 04:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has very little to say on the label itself. It is mostly concerned with manufacturing in China, hence it is an unneeded fork of Manufacturing in China. What little it does say on the label fairly comprehensively misrepresents its source. it's a hodge-podge of an article of random stuff. I wouldn't recommend merging anything to anywhere. SpinningSpark 23:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manufacturing in China. I doubt it's worth merging anything. If the topic is notable (which it might be), anyone interested in writing an article about it should probably start from scratch. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion to determine, with more certainty, a Merge or Redirect target. Manufacturing in China will not work as it, itself, is a redirect. Other suggestions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manufacturing in China seems the best choice. Oaktree b (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize Manufacturing in China was a redirect (I should have checked). In that case redirect to Economy of China#Industry and manufacturing and tag as R avoided double redirect. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:07, 10 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 merge to Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane#Subsidiaries. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bluferries[edit]

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

None of the sources give a significant mention; none of the Google search results do, either. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Italy. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the Italian article on the same company at Bluferries - Wikipedia D-AIFF (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane#Subsidiaries. A few references in Italian confirm its existence as a sub but nothing to show independent notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To make it easier for closer, I already added it. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:56, 14 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. Not notable but also not generic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Baxley[edit]

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

Non-notable generic person. Fails. WP:NBIO, WP:GNG related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baxley_(Musical_Artist) Graywalls (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Graywalls (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Usable sources are not there yet. BD2412 T 02:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the same reasons as discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxley (Musical Artist). They are the same guy and non-notable twice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxley (Musical Artist). Pichpich (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per directly above, I was unable to find any independent, reliable sources (fails GNG), nor is there any indication ANYBIO or any criteria of NMUSIC is met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. NMasiha (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To the nominator, while this artist may not have had a high-flying career as a musician, they are still a human being. Please never call an individual a "generic person" in a deletion discussion. It's dehumanizing. We can critique an article and an article subject for its notability without suggesting that they are generic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 16 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!} 01:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World CopperSmith[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I noticed this while it was in userspace. My WP:BEFORE didn't show any promise. —Alalch E. 00:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —Alalch E. 00:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bunch of PR releases about the company are about all you can find for sourcing, but this article is likely promotional. When one of your sources is the Better Business Bureau, that's a good indication there isn't much else out there. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find an NCORP-compliant source in a search of Google News, TWL, or Newspapers.com. No obvious redirect target. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Kablammo (talk) 12:49, 15 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.