< January 11	January 13 >

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 Dysdiadochokinesia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adiadochokinesia[edit]

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

As per wikipedia is not a dictionary. This condition is covered by Dysdiadochokinesia and Adiadochokinesia is a specific instance of this. In fact in this textbook here the chapter relating to the condition is titled "Adiadochokinesia or Dysdiadochokinesia". This topic is at best a single line in the Dysdiadochokinesia article I would argue. This is outside my expertise so please correct me if I have something wrong. EvilxFish (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

note I used the word "chapter" when referring to the textbook but should have said section as it is not the entire chapter. EvilxFish (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to dysdiadochokinesia. Compare e.g. aphasia and dysphasia, where the latter redirects to the former. TompaDompa (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per aphasia and dysphasia, as suggested by TompaDompa, wont be a problem. Adiadochokinesia is the extreme extend of dysdiadochokinesia. But I am wondering whether all human symptoms deserve an article. All human symptoms are surely encyclopedic, they have been subject to extensive examination. Has this been discussed already somewhere in WP? Cinadon36 08:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the latter part of your comment, it comes down to how is the information best presented. Would it be better to have a single article that discusses all of them, especially if there isn't that much to say about them individually, or is there enough content to warrant a separate article? EvilxFish (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dysdiadochokinesia as they're related but this doesn't meet WP:GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Dysdiadochokinesia--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to have to be a merge and redirect, without deletion, because there is content in Adiadochokinesia that isn't in Dysdiadochokinesia (e.g., the history of its discovery). I'm a dyed-in-the-wool mergeist, but I find it a little odd that editors are saying the subject doesn't meet GNG when multiple books are cited in the refs... (EvilxFish, please use Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers rather than AFD when you believe two articles should be merged.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: ah will do in future, sorry, there may be one or two other proposals I have put forward that are similar, in that I believed the topic should be a redirect or merge rather than a deletion per say. I just assumed all of it was handled though AfD, my bad! EvilxFish (talk) 06:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Wikipedia's a complicated place. Nobody expects anyone to know all the things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to dysdiadochokinesia.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:09, 19 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!} 23:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onkar Singh Batra[edit]

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

Non-notable. The alleged "world records" were registered not by Guinness but by obscure title mill organizations that themselves did not warrant Wikipedia articles. Most of the sources listed are WordPress blogs, not proper news websites. The so-called "Paradox Sonic Space Research Association", of which the article subject is the "CEO", consists of an empty website, and it seems that they cannot even make up their minds whether it's called "Paradox Sonic Space Research Association" or "Paradox Sonic Space Research Agency". Either way, WP:COMPANY are clearly not met. Building a cubesat is not particularly impressive, one can buy a cubesat kit for several thousand dollars. He received several awards, yes, but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTNP.

There is obviously a concerted effort to promote the kid, that the user who created the article has no other contributions and created his account a day ago further proves it. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't believe the notability criteria have been met as of yet. Escargoten (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, COVID-19, Software, and India. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Building a cubesat is neat, but any person can do one now (that was the point of the program). Records "won" don't seem notable. Seems like the kid is on a path to a bright future, but not notable, yet, for wiki purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI news is a press-release service, India Science appears to be user-generated... The rest of the sources (as explained above) don't help the situation. The world's youngest webmaster? He runs a website; that is not notable in 2023, perhaps in 1993 it would have been. Some of the claims seem outlandish. I'm amazed this was passed at AfC. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep India Science appears to be a governmental source and as such could be considered reliable. The record "won" are registered by World Record Certification Limited (and not the Guinness and the wiki article doesn't emphasize on records being a "Guinness Title". The subject is definitely notable, article may need some cleanup. I'm not amazed over this being passed at AfC. Claims about the CubeSat are true and recorded in various news websites. Rohit9235 (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Rohit9235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Ok, it's a reliable source, with trivial coverage. He's mentioned in a few lines and nothing more. We need a heck of a lot more than that to meet GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here, here, here, here and here Wednesdaykaur (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's the same article published on several websites. As I said, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTNP. Escargoten (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although he have some coverage from reliable sources but needs in-depth, few of the sources are news blogposts. Being an author of the book, he also doesn't pass the WP:CREATIVE. He won India's highest Children award but sources and Google aren't confirming it in anyway. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Ashraf333 I found some sources on the web confirming this. Pradhan Mantri Bal Puraskar is the India's highest civilian honor for Here and here. A tweet by the Prime Minister of India confirming this either. Rohit9235 (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Rohit9235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The second one appears to be a click bait site, the first one looks about the same. Was he not covered in the Times of India or other large news organization? It would really help the case here if we can see coverage in large newspapers. Those you've given seen suspect, and the fact that the child isn't mentioned anywhere else is a red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here, here, here, here, here and here Wednesdaykaur (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Amar Ujala and Punjab Kesari are two large Hindi news organizations in India. India Today and The Hindi said 'Omkar Singh' here and here. Another piece of news from The Hindu covers a bit about Onkar Singh, Bal Puraskar under KAMP here Wednesdaykaur (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Agree to previous comment. Winning the highest civilian honour for children would’ve made him better placed in terms of notability but there are no Governmental sources or press releases that state the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohan9082 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article's subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE; it's supported by press releases, churnalism, and unreliable sources. The article has a lot of WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims but questionable sources to support those claims. The entry for the world record for "youngest male webmaster" says he was seven, but he would have been about fourteen when the record was apparently recorded. How did they verify it seven years after it supposedly happened, took them at their word? Invented a time machine to go back and make sure nobody helped him make the website? Even if that world record site was 100% reliable and didn't have such an emphasis on selling "world record" status as a product (We work with brands and enterprises worldwide to deliver the ultimate record-breaking marketing campaigns. That doesn't add up. Notability hasn't been established. - Aoidh (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I don't find any sources as WordPress blogposts (correct me if I'm wrong). The company Paradox Sonic Space Research Association has a registered name. The website appears to be on maintenance, can't consider it as an empty website. The factor of notability does not comes up with how impressive building a CubeSat is. Your idea of a one buying a CubeSat kit appears more of a conspiracy (cite a proof here). Rohit9235 (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Rohit9235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

no, wordpress blogs are user generated and not a reliable source. "WordPress.com is a blog hosting service that runs on the WordPress software. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. WordPress.com should never be used for claims related to living persons; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated. "[1]. And [2], if he built it in school, anyone can, so it's not notable. If his "company" built it, it isn't sourced from a neutral third-party source, so we can't use the citation given (and it's not notable anyway).

Anyone can register a website, give me five minutes and I'll hop over to wix and create my own. His is blank, so can't be used to support notability, as it has NO CONTENT. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the article reads.... "the company Paradox Sonic was founded by him." There is no proof on that satellite is sourced from a third-party period. Wednesdaykaur (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's related to him as you said, you can't use a website created by him as a source, he's connected to it. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you have already !voted to Keep the article above I have struck this duplicate bolded recommendation per WP:AFDFORMAT. - Aoidh (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough reliable sources to verify the notability of the article. Don't find a reason for deletion so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) 13:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please quote what sources you think are best to prove reliability, that's the issue, we don't seem to have any. Oaktree b (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here, here, here, here and here Wednesdaykaur (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Those are related to the satellite, not about this person. We could perhaps create an article on the satellite, I'm not seeing how those help GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I find it quite ironic that the only people who voted for Keep are the article's author — who created his account 2 days ago for this sole purpose — and a certain Rohit9235 with an account created today. Then a similar empty account with no contributions attempted to close the discussion. Mr. Singh, I understand that you don't like that the article that you wrote about yourself is being considered for deletion, but I hope you realize that sockpuppeting is against Wikipedia rules and that you're not authorized to singlehandedly shut down discussions. Escargoten (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree to all previous comments. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTNP due to fake title mill "awards" and no real sources. EbuKedi (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — EbuKedi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I highly doubt Rashtriya Bal Puraskar or Sikh 100 list as a "title mill award". Could you cite proofs on awards being fake? Rohit9235 (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Rohit9235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Making a 30 under 30 list isn't proof of notability. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree but calling it a "title mill award" is defamatory either. Wednesdaykaur (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The "title mill award" was a reference to the claims of being the "World's Youngest Theoretical Author" and "World's Youngest Webmaster", which are indeed only sourced by title mill websites. Rashtriya Bal Puraskar is not a title mill, but in itself not a proof of notability either. Escargoten (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A reference for "World's Youngest Theoretical Author" [3] Wednesdaykaur (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
From your own link: "world’s youngest webmaster (male)’ certification from World Record Certification Limited, London".

"World Record Certification" is a title mill for those who don't meet Guinness requirements. A newspaper reporting on a title mill award does not establish notability. Escargoten (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When did the Wiki article said that "Onkar received the record from Guinness?" Rohit9235 (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please check WP:N. A Guinness record is notable, a title mill certificate that his parents probably just bought for him is not. Escargoten (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would removing those record titles from achievement page help? Let that Child award and satellite thing remain. Those are notable and not so-called "title mills". Rohit9235 (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like @AngusWOOF said, the child award does not confer individual notability. Nor does building a cubesat. Escargoten (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It helps remove unreliable sources, so helps further prove non-notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rashtriya Bal Puraskar is awarded to 20-30 children every year. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I find a collective effort by Escargoten with a sock-puppet account EbuKedi to take down this particular article. No strong evidences apart from conspiracies and baseless allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit9235 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Rohit9235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No conspiracy present, we're trying to present well-reasoned arguments that don't support notability requirements for Wikipedia. There are no baseless allegations, we've sourced everything being discussed here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your account was created this morning for the sole purpose of defending this article. Tell me about "sockpuppets". Escargoten (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oaktree's reasoning. Appears to be more churnalism. As mentioned before, being on a top 100 or a 30 under 30 list isn't notable. Rashtriya is given out to 20-30 kids a year, and it is not clear if this is equivalent to a Presidential Scholars Program (given to about 100-120 students a year), which doesn't confer individual notability. Needs references to the actual Guinness World Records site where they list kids who broke notable records. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar is equivalent to Presidential Scholars Program but is more selective in nature. Wednesdaykaur (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I don't know about that. Presidential Scholars is quite selective (only 2 per state). Still at the equivalent of a 30 under 30 selection. The article really needs more GNG sources. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And they get a heck of a lot more coverage than this person does. I almost think this is a hoax, the more we discuss it, the worse the quality of the sources gets. I would hazard a guess that this was created to boost whatever business the person is trying to promote.

"Kid builds satellite at school, creates website for and about himself and claims to have won non-notable awards (that were either paid for, or are given out to many children each year)" seems to be the subject being discussed. I don't think much of any of this can be used for GNG, CREATIVE, BIO or COMPANY. That's about where this sits now. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The internet confirms India has launched hundreds of cubesats since around 2017, so building one isn't that notable anymore. So I'm not sure what's left to use for notability. Smart kid in school with website? Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note per WP:RSP for Guinness World Records (which is marked as yellow): "There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage." AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage are not as per notability criteria. It doesn't have independent, reliable, secondary sources.Fails WP:GNG.Lordofhunter (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:10, 19 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 Neon (Australian band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Troiano[edit]

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

Non-notable musician; there is no in-depth coverage of this person from reliable secondary sources. Article built mostly of name-dropping more notable musicians that the subject has supposedly worked with, but notability is not inherited. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find any RSs via WikiLibrary and Newsbank databases, and if he was notable they should have existed by now (given his singles were released 2009-2016; and his jewelry making). Cabrils (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep ~~May be~~ Notable as a jeweller to various celebrities, sources now in article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Upgraded my vote to keep based on overall improvements to article.11:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose a merge. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neon (Australian band) if any reliable sources confirming he was a drummer are found. Mooonswimmer 04:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have already supplied such a ref but I still prefer to keep this article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:38, 4 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!} 22:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Neon (Australian band) per wp:atd. // Timothy :: talk 11:39, 12 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!} 22:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Neon (Australian band): Article has some merit however I feel it is much more appropriate for a merge due to lack of reliable sources. - GA Melbourne (talk) 09:41, 18 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 Playground. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial playgrounds[edit]

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

The content in this article appears to be highly irrelevant (it mostly contains very specific corporate and regulatory details) and we have a much more comprehensive article on the topic at Playground. Redtree21 (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Redtree21 (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand why this is a valid AfD nomination, if a merge has already been proposed and is being discussed...? Cielquiparle (talk) 22:01, 29 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!} 22:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an industry term for 'literally anything except a park or school playground'. Playground covers it fine, this article is otherwise just industry copy. Nate • (chatter) 01:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What is the status of the Merge discussion mentioned here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Playground as an ATD - User:Liz, the merge discussion has had minimal activity in the last three months, with 3 opposes and 1 support. Reading the two articles, I agree with the opposition to the merge: there's nothing of value currently in this article for playground. That said, commercial playgrounds clearly meets GNG; I found several reasonable academic sources. (ex: ^[1]) Thus, because it seems like a reasonable search term (as it is an industry term that has been used over the years by academics and the press), I favor keeping the term as a redirect. Any reliable sources related to commercial playgrounds can be productively added to Playground#Types, with no prejudice against splitting the article if someone wants to write a more elaborate history on commercial playgrounds/playspaces in the future. Suriname0 (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the merge discussion update, Suriname0. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ McKENDRICK, John H.; Bradford, Michael G.; Fielder, Anna V. (August 2000). "Kid Customer?: Commercialization of Playspace and the Commodification of Childhood". Childhood. 7 (3): 295–314. doi:10.1177/0907568200007003004. ISSN 0907-5682.

Redirect as appropriate. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 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 speedy keep per criteria 1, "absence of delete rationale." But snowball would likely also apply. SouthernNights (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Works of Shakespeare[edit]

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

Some of the collections of Shakespeare works listed here notable, but I don't think the concept of collecting all of Shakespeare works in one place should have its own article. Mucube (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mucube (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding it hard to imagine a reason grounded in policy and common practice why this topic wouldn't benefit from a page. At least some of the items in the list are blue links, ones that aren't (and even some that aren't on the list yet) have received reviews [4][5][6][7][8], the general merit of publishing these volumes has been discussed [9][10], different realizations of the goal have been compared [11], performances of the whole thing can be an event, and scholars are known for their work on editing such collections [12]. XOR'easter (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per criterion 1: no policy-based deletion rationale has been articulated. On the merits, the above rationale is convincing regardless. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess LIST would be what we'd look at here? None of the list items are sourced here, but most are blue-linked, so they do have articles which I presume are adequately sourced. Not sure if we need a list of books that all cover the same topic, without any source of discussion around the merits of each. I'm sure this would be useful to some, I'm not sure what purpose it serves in wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST. I suppose it has merit under the cross-category listings it has. I feel like I'm talking in cirlces. Keep I suppose is what my !vote is. Oaktree b (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOR'easter. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOR'easter and Jclemens. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with XOR'easter. AndyJones (talk) 08:34, 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!} 23:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NJPW New Years Golden Series[edit]

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

No notable. A promotion held a tour, as many other promotions. Sources just cover results, WP:ROUTINE HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Wrestling, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The first source refers to the tour as commemorating NJPW's 50th anniversary, so the claimed rationale of this being any old tour is bogus. For someone who doesn't follow the current NJPW product, I've read quite a bit about that anniversary. I also know that pro wrestling receives substantial legitimate media coverage in Japan. There's a certain clique of admins who constantly complain about the sources pushed by WP:PW. That stance doesn't have a whole lot of teeth when you have a million excuses for not bothering to exploit the type of sources you claim should be used on this project, or assisting others in that regard. I've already said too much about how useless WP:RSN is. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying this is an old tour. I said a lot of promotions held tours, like Ring of Honor or WWE. I'm pointing these events are barely covered by sources. Making a research, it's just WP:ROUTINE "[13]" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:12, 10 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!} 22:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is entirely routine. No independent analysis or discussion. BruceThomson (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:12, 19 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, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles chinedu Ndukauba[edit]

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

Non-notable media personality, and actor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR]. Shoerack (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, News media, and Nigeria. Shoerack (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - autobiography by SPA editor. Does not come close to meeting notability criteria.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree. I've looked at the sources and am unimpressed for a number of reasons: 1-they look like blog entries and not journalistic sources; 2-the links provided don't link to any source we can check; and 3-the issues they "attempt" to source don't seem to have any WP:IMPACT. I have some WP:PROMOTION concerns too. I removed the request for a speedy delete because I didn't think it qualified under that criteria, but I'm glad it was brought up here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources in the article are not reliable and a Google search found no sources. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are blogs and user-created sites. I don't see much of anything for this person we can use for sourcing. Content creator that makes stuff to post online, rather routine these days in the social media world. He does seem like a happy person, always smiling. Oaktree b (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Majority of the sources in the article are unreliable. The subject doesn't have a career to speak of and is far too young to have any substiantial career at this time. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article. Dympies (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT per above discussion, especially GNG. I also want to point out the obvious sock puppetry going on here. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks reliable independent sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per all above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:21, 19 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!} 22:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Neale[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. The article's citations consist almost entirely of primary sources and trivial mentions. A WP:BEFORE internet search on multiple search engines found no significant coverage of him in WP:RS-compliant sources. Please note that intraparty officeholders of a political party, even those who have served as national chair, do not have presumed notability per Wikipedia's notability standards for politicians/political figures. Sal2100 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Politicians, Libertarianism, and Texas. Sal2100 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The consensus has been growing that chairs of minor parties are not automatically notable. There's nothing to show this person passes general notability. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:36, 19 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!} 22:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy governance[edit]

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

This concept appears to have been made up by this one company (that isn't notable). The only reference on the article is from that company. Numberguy6 (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BOLLOCKS. Taxonomy has a meaning in science, I teach it, and this is nonsense. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Claxton Shield team rosters[edit]

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

There were no significant players competing in this tournament, so unlikely to be "significant coverage" so delete per WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Australia. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:NLIST, full of non notable entries. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and no references given. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. List of non-notable individuals' birthdates, looks like a gross violation of data privacy. Does not belong on Wikipedia. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. Mostly non-notable sportspeople in a competition with low significant coverage. Ajf773 (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom, not to mention the article fails WP:GNG and contains inadequate referencing. - GA Melbourne (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:39, 19 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 Bugle. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Bugle episodes[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NLIST. There was a recent RfC discussion (disclosure: I opened it and participated) that suggested that podcast episode lists still have to pass NLIST and are generally not preferred unless the podcast has some kind of narrative or plot. I don't see any sources discussing the show's episodes as a group or set, and none of the episodes appear to be independently notable. TipsyElephant (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Radio, and Entertainment. TipsyElephant (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Bugle. Fails WP:NLIST per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Bugle ,fails WP:NLIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:55, 19 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) 21:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Boyka[edit]

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

Not notable musician; spam with zero reliable sources LusikSnusik (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tons of coverage in Russian-language media, but I can't tell which are RS, most looks like tabloids using Gtranslate. Leaning !delete unless an editor here can confirm how RS the sources are or aren't. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have checked Google-news hits on her in Russian, the number of hits is, indeed, high, but it is mostly articles from Russian tabloids, discussing the singer's look or gossips about her. A Russian article on Forbes ([14]) seems to be the most valuable reference, somehow showing Boyka's notability: she was listed in the Russian Forbes 30 Under 30 as the most prominent female musician below 30 in 2022. ThegaBolt (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable as per the Forbes 30 Under 30 and also several songs that have charted Qwv (talk) 23:00, 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!} 21:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Károly Bogyó[edit]

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

Badly sourced BLP on a semi-pro footballer/futsal player with nothing to contribute to WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. A Hungarian source search yielded some sources which I will analyse. ZAOL mentions him once in the main text, confirming that he is the top scorer of the Western Division of the second tier of Hungarian futsal. Not much of a claim to notability there. Kanizsa Újság is a local Nagykanizsa-based paper which mentions Bogyó a few times in the match report. Zala County's Zala Sport also has some match report coverage of amateur futsal that mentions him a few times. I can't find anything better than these match reports so there is no reasonable opportunity to build a biography for Bogyó. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 23:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 23:31, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transit (2012 film)[edit]

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

This film was tagged for notability by another editor. I removed the tag because it has 8 Critic Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, including Variety and The Guardian.

The other editor said 8 reviews from RT is irrelevant and stated, "No, in fact - the consensus at MOS:FILM has been is that 8 reviews is NOT enough for films - remove aggregator again." This is NOT true, as MOS:FILMCRITICS (which is the policy for using RT as a source) does not list a minimum number of critic reviews at RT for inclusion in an article.

I feel this article should be KEPT and should have the notability tag removed, but when I remove it another editor adds it back. Lets decide once and for all, is this film notable enough to be kept and have the notability tag removed, or should it be deleted? Thank you. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP It's got critical reviews in the Guardian, Variety and the London Evening Standard. Although Rotten tomatoes only provides links to one of them: [15] (the London Evening Standard appears to be a re-direct now). It's not a very good movie apparently, but it's at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another first at AfD, the nominator actually wanting to keep an article. Fun times. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And here's one from Roger Ebert.com [16] Oaktree b (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Roger Ebert one is regarding Transit (2018 film) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oops, too many films with this name. Still passes FILM I think. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found a Time Out review which is enough for WP:NFILM and this is also supported by lengthier reviews in Cinevue, Flick Filosopher and Brian Orndorf. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviews from The Guardian, Time Out (magazine), Variety (magazine), and London Evening Standard, which are WP:RS, independent, and significant coverage, demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. Moreover, these are nationally known publications passing WP:NFILM criteria 1. VickKiang (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's many reviews as previous editors noted are significant, reliable, and independent, so the article meets WP:GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has enough reviews for notability. --Jamarast (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As evidenced above, there are enough reviews published in reliable independent sources to make the film notable per WP:GNG. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above has many reviews passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to New Brunswick, New Jersey. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Park, New Brunswick[edit]

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

Cannot find any reliable secondary sources saying that Lincoln Park is a neighborhood in New Brunswick. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep tons of sources saying that Lincoln Park is in New Brunswick, an especially reliable one here https://www.nj.gov/treasury/omb/pdf/forms/municodes.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterMatt12 (talk • contribs)
- Um...that's clearly Lincoln Park, New Jersey in Morris County... Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exisitence as a neighborhood is not notability. Could be redirected to New_Brunswick,_New_Jersey or a new neighborhoods section in it. Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to article for parent municipality.... with no prejudice to recreation as a standalone article if and when additional material becomes available. There's nothing in the article that would indicate the place meets the WP:GEOLAND standard. Alansohn (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete I do not see the point of redirecting to a parent area when there is nothing significant to say about this one there, and this area at the moment has nothing going for it beyond a GNIS entry, which doesn't cut the mustard. Mangoe (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Brunswick, New Jersey. An area is named Lincoln Gardens on this 1950 plan [17]. It's also shown on OpenStreetMap and on USGS maps. However, I couldn't find other references. Although a populated place it seems it's not legally recognised as such. Therefore, no presumption of notability under WP:GEOLAND applies. Also, fails WP:GNG as doesn't seem to be significant coverage. Prefer a redirect to delete as the information in the article is supported by official maps. Rupples (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Brunswick, New Jersey.Djflem (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly nothing interesting to say about this neighbourhood.

Nwhyte (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if there's nothing sourceably significant to say about it besides "it exists". However, I would suggest that since the title of the page got this discussion erroneously delsorted as a Canadian topic (which it isn't), I'd also note that regardless of whether this gets kept or redirected, it will need to be disambiguated as "New Brunswick, New Jersey" rather than just "New Brunswick" for clarity's sake. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 19 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) 18:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Abdullah[edit]

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

Despite playing one minute or so of professional league football, doesn't seem to be notable per WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The former guideline asks for at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources, which we do not have here. We don't even have clear confirmation of his date of birth or position. The only source I can find in Arabic searches about a footballer called 'Fahad/Fahd Abdullah' is Kooora, which has very low standards for inclusion and does not confer notability. Oppose merge/redirect due to how common his name is in the Arabic-speaking world and due to lack of an obvious target. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and only source given (and also only sources that exist) is a database. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Krauter[edit]

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

relatively unknown Enalya (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page lacks secondary source and mainly point to the presentation page of the university that employs him.

No noticeable publications (that can be open to interpretation, that's why I opened this discussion).

He seems pretty active on Twitter as an ENR advocate/militant mainly.

Enalya (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per WP:PROF#C1. Full professors at a good German universities (Paderborn, not UASB) are generally notable (not as an actual notability criterion, but they generally only give these positions to people who meet our criteria) and he seems no exception. If it were only #C1 I'd give this a weak keep (because we need more than that to build an article) but there's enough coverage of him either for his entrepreneurial activities or as an energy expert [18] [19] [20] to upgrade my opinion to a full keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The person in [21] [22] [23] is not the same one as in the current article. Here are two pictures: Cargo-Partner CEO (on the left) vs the Uni professor. Enalya (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then weak keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:NPROF C1. I deprodded for procedural reasons (previously prodded) a few years ago, and didn't take to AfD because I thought it looked like a possibly pass of WP:NPROF C1. The Google Scholar record shows lots of highly cited papers in what I understand to be a medium-citation field, including several with low number of coauthors. It's a little difficult to separate the subject from a few other Stefan Krauters. I am surprised that I was unable to find reviews of his book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep per C1. The citation record is strong enough for keeping in my opinion. --Mvqr (talk) 11:45, 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 merge to 2014 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Polo. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Polo (2014)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENTS or WP:NWeather guidelines. Caused minimal damage and few fatalities. Can be merged into 2014 Pacific hurricane season (WP:NOPAGE). Drdpw (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Science, and Mexico. Drdpw (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a case where we have a notable storm but limited information on it. Well then, in that case, why not look for more information on it? --72.80.245.12 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, in this case we have a minimal hurricane that did not make landfall, caused little damage and resulted in 1 (perhaps up to 4) fatalities. Drdpw (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2014 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Polo per WP:NOPAGE. Article can be said in section. Tails Wx 22:16, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Venti[edit]

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

Per WP:BASIC. I could only find 3 reliable secondary sources covering her at all and only one of them covers her extensively (a Vice article part of a series on YouTubers), the other two only mention her in passing: the BuzzFeed News article about the Balenciaga controversy only covers her TikTok video and the Vocativ article covers her arrest during a public demonstration (and only the first half of the article talks about her or the arrest). I don't think the criteria are being met yet. Kzkzb (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Entertainment. Kzkzb (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Vocativ is titled Alt-Right Provocateur Arrested At May Day Protest, Popular streamer Brittany Venti was arrested by the NYPD at Union Square. The article is clearly about her, so that counts towards her notability. I think coverage of her in a notable documentary series also counts towards notability. Dream Focus 13:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 14:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.dorkaholics.com/brittany-venti-4chan-hackers/ Google news search shows this is a legitimate news source. There are no discussions about it on the reliable sources noticeboard. They state But, IMHO, this was a [dark] internet prank and Brittany Venti should get an Oscar for her wonderful over the top performance. Dream Focus 14:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2019/04/rise-YouTube-ironic-teenage-right-Soph Google news search shows she's mentioned here, but its hidden behind a paywall. Does anyone have access to that? That is listed as being reliable on the reliable sources noticeboard [24]. ClutchPoints https://clutchpoints.com/the-five-best-vtuber-moments-of-2020 Had a video of hers listed as "The Five Best Vtuber Moments of 2020". The video listed links to her YouTube channel, it one of her videos, they mentioning her. Dream Focus 14:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NS link is only a brief mention so not helpful to establish notability. In total it says: Sophia is best known to her fans as Lieutenant Corbis, but more recently has changed her online name to Soph. “Lieutenant Corbis was kind of a corny name”, she tells Brittany Venti, another young, far-right YouTube star. Mujinga (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus On your first reply:

The Vocativ article only talks about her arrest in its first half (likely as part of broader coverage of the protests), and only talks about Venti herself in a two-sentence paragraph; this is hardly significant coverage, regardless of the fact that she is named in the article's byline. And even if multiple articles were made about her arrest, that would count towards the notability of her arrest, not towards the notability of Venti herself.

Although I agree that the Vice article brings her closer to meeting the criteria, Wikipedia:BASIC states that People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources, while she has only received significant coverage in one. I would change my mind if I were shown another article in the same vein of that article but I haven't found any.

On your second reply:

I had seen that Dorkaholics article and chose not to include it in my reasoning because I wasn't sure if it was considered a reliable source, but I'll take your word for it. However it doesn't give her significant coverage since it's an opinion piece on a YouTube video of her being harassed by trolls, where she is only described as a YouTuber and streamer.

On your third reply:

I had glossed over that New Statesman article in my research since its title didn't seem relevant to the topic. It's about a YouTuber named Sophia and it only mentions Venti by name once ("Lieutenant Corbis was kind of a corny name", she tells Brittany Venti, another young, far-right YouTube star.) so it doesn't give her significant coverage. -- Kzkzb (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's mentioned in a New Statesman article, but it's paywalled. [25]. Hardly any coverage at all, nothing at length. I'm not even seeing GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vocativ is trivial coverage; the entire article is a few paragraphs long, she's barely mentioned. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found an additional source, and improved the article using it and existing sources. She has made news for her anti-misogyny work, then been featured in a notable documentary about that, also made news for being banned from Twitch, and for being arrested. Her role in the Balenciaga ad campaign controversy alone could make her notable. All that said, written reliable sources don't have extensive coverage about her. But in the context of WP:BASIC saying People are 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., then I think that is exactly how I see this article. CT55555(talk) 05:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I removed content per WP:BLPCRIME and do not think sources only supporting content suggesting the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime can be used to support notability for this subject per policy. I can access The New Statesman article, which focuses its 4-graf coverage on a YouTuber who produces racist, misogynist content and may be doing this "ironically", and only has this about Venti: "“Lieutenant Corbis was kind of a corny name”, she tells Brittany Venti, another young, far-right YouTube star." Beccaynr (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, and I am not certain, but I think most of her content is satire. Anyway, I found her Twitter and the latest video is about how people are misunderstanding satire in this era: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nf-BzOcdwY&ab_channel=BrittanyVenti CT55555(talk) 06:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters. This is only a question of whether there is sufficient support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability. There just does not appear to be much in-depth content available, even with combined sources, to develop an article about her. Beccaynr (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BASIC. The 2016 Vice article is essentially a review of her work (by contrast, Dorkaholics has no editorial standards that I could find, and their post is not a review), and the 2022 Guardian documentary review offers three sentences: "When Theroux interviewed Brittany Venti, one of the rare women involved in the bros’ work and the recipient of the above rape threat, she said she had assumed most of what they said was tongue-in-cheek. But when they turned on her, she realised the misogyny (“They say all women are whores”) was real rather than ironic. She has not yet extrapolated further, still making light of anti-semitic footage and although mixed race herself, apparently unperturbed from the beginning by the racism that is central to the cause." In the 2022 book Meme Wars, she is described as a "well-known internet troll" at p.177 with a brief mention of her participation in disrupting an online performance piece by Shia LaBeouf, and she is reported by Buzzfeed News in December 2022 to have first tweeted about the Balenciaga campaign, e.g. "(“I don’t know for a fact that Balenciaga are satanists or whatever,” Venti told BuzzFeed News, "but I can see why some would draw that conclusion.”)". It seems WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article due to a lack of significant coverage. She seems to have some notoriety, but this is not the same as notability; the brief, trivial, and occasionally tabloid-style coverage seems insufficient to support a BLP at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dorkaholics is like other sources. They have a paid staff and editing standards. They don't allow anyone to submit content. They wrote an entire article about something she did. Her actions get coverage over a long period time in many different places. As for the documentary, it is notable enough to be reviewed, and a significant portion of it has her in it. Dream Focus 07:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dorkaholics appears to functionally be a blog, and the 2 grafs plus 2 sentences post is a superficial description of one incident, without secondary depth about her similar to the Vice 'review'. Her work has not received significant coverage over a long time in multiple independent and reliable sources, and there is hardly any secondary coverage to situate her work beyond "well known troll" and "far-right YouTube star".

As to the 3-part documentary series, according to the Evening Standard, she was "Theroux’s only female interviewee", and the "series also dives into Florida’s rap scene, and how the porn industry is responding to the MeToo movement". She appears in a notable series, and two reviews briefly focus on her experience with misogyny, with the Guardian also observing her apparent ongoing lack of concern over anti-semitism and racism, but this is limited secondary coverage. At this time, it appears only a few disjointed sentences can be written about her, because of the limited, superficial, and insufficient coverage available to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per source analysis by Beccaynr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable secondary sources to pass GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:46, 18 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 - WP:SNOW, this is a borderline WP:CSD#G11. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Soroka[edit]

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

Puff page doesn't pass GNG or NARTIST Tarletonic (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Television, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find significant coverage in reliable sources Mujinga (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This autobiography of a video editor does not meet WP criteria for notability per WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. The two "sources" in the article do not even mention her. None of the awards or nominations for awards are sourced and an online search brings up nothing. Netherzone (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if she really has won and been nominated for all of these awards then surely there'd be coverage but searches are bringing up nowt Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found, a lady with the North Utica Senior's Center has coverage, same name. I don't see any sourcing for this film person. The awards also don't seem notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. AFD has repeatedly found that winners of Regional Emmys (pg. 37) don't get a presumption of notability for merely winning the award. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As cited by fellow editors it lacks WP:GNG Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per reasoning stated above Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 00:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. Wikipedia should use this page as an example of an article that does not meet the criteria and should be removed. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Winners of local Emmys are not automatically notable. The other awards seem to be even less important. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:47, 19 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulkarim Abdulsalam Zaura[edit]

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

Unelected, political office aspirant. Fails NPOL. Shoerack (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politics, and Nigeria. Shoerack (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I'd also suggest Draftifying. Zaura is non-notable, fails NPOL as nom has stated. Likely a case of TOOSOON, the elections will be held in late February and it seems likely that Zaura will be elected a federal senator. Mooonswimmer 01:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Dra 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:30, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romana Umrianova[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person, now likely retired. Newklear007 (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Fashion, and Slovakia. Newklear007 (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't matter whether she is retired now, what matters is whether she was ever notable and I'm not seeing significant coverage by reliable sources to suggest that this is the case. Also, I note that the only reason this survived to see a second nomination is that literally nobody bothered to !vote on the first one, not even the article author. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources Mujinga (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sources found are the various model-listing sites, nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 12 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) 🐱 13:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgeny Fomin[edit]

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

Footballer had very brief professional career but has spent most of his career as a semi-pro with seemingly little coverage. The Belarusian Wikipedia article has some sources but they fail to show WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Pressball is a trivial mention in a quote from his coach. Football 1 is a brief transfer announcement, which appears to be sourced to his club's website. In any case, the coverage is too weak for GNG. Football 2 is sourced to Twitter and is only routine sports coverage. In my own searches in Russian and Belarusian, all I can find is Sportnaviny, another very brief transfer announcement, and some Wikipedia mirrors. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wasn't able to find anything substantial. Perhaps TOOSOON. Mujinga (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:35, 18 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) 🐱 13:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zin Phyo Aung[edit]

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

Can't find anything better than just a trivial mention so doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC despite having some involvement with the national team. No hits in Burmese in Google News and the English results show only trivial mentions.

Three sources are currently cited, one of which is Facebook. The other two sources are a very brief injury announcement and the other is a one-sentence squad announcement. More recently, Myanmar Digital Newspaper mentions him once and Duwun says he was removed from his club's squad for 'breaking the rules' but doesn't elaborate on that at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 07:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:34, 18 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) 🐱 13:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Marion[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Breaktakingly obscure actress with just a handful of bit roles, half of them uncredited? Fails all notability standards going away, and one's left to wonder how anyone would bother creating an article on the subject, short of being the editor's grandmother. Pinging @User:TimothyBlue, because I'd be quite interested in why he declined a perfectly reasonable PROD on the subject. Ravenswing 18:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Bit parts in old movies, not meeting ACTOR or GNG. I can't find anything; likely more in paper sources, but her roles appear minor, so I'm not thinking we'll find much. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , Uncredited parts in old movies does not equate to a significant contribution in her field. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every person who appears in front of a camera in any genre does not qualify for WP:Notability. She may eventually get to a point where she qualifies but she doesn’t yet. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um, well, with the subject's last screen credit being over sixty years ago (and that one was her only screen credit since the 1930s) -- never mind having died nearly forty years ago -- I'm thinking that she's pretty unlikely to do much to improve her notability. Ravenswing 17:33, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar National Bank Tower[edit]

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

Zero in-depth refs from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Was sent to draft in hopes of improvement, but returned to mainspace without any. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage to merit inclusion. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 16:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not sure what the editor who created articles about all of these individual buildings in Qatar was thinking, but this one seems to have only ever have been proposed, so I really don't see the notability at all for this one in particular. Elinruby (talk) 23:13, 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 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Towers[edit]

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

Zero in-depth refs from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Was sent to draft in hopes of improvement, but returned to mainspace without any. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 12 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 tallest buildings in Doha, Qatar. There is clear consensus against a standalone article. I'm redirecting to the only title mentioned below that explicitly mentions this page, but other targets may be possible, and if the list articles are expanded to include prose content may be worth retrieving from the edit history. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JW Marriott Tower Hotel[edit]

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

Zero in-depth refs from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Was sent to draft in hopes of improvement, but returned to mainspace without any. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (was "Keep" -Doncram (talk,contribs) 16:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)), on belief that does exist coverage somewhere for a project of this size (52 floors), more than 200m tall. Alternatively it would be okay to include this as a row in a list of tall buildings, including sourcing, and redirect to that. I am not sure of what the cutoff height should be, but to me it would make sense just to accept coverage in Wikipedia of buildings taller than that (and I used to think 100 meters would work). For some height, there are only say 10,000 buildings world-wide, and it would save a lot of ridiculous churning in creation and deletion of articles about them. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW there is List of tallest buildings in Doha, Qatar which includes numerous buildings of fewer floors and also there is List of tallest skyscrapers in Qatar. The latter explicitly states it is for buildings 100m or taller. Maybe the two list-articles should be merged, I dunno, but they should be modified to allow descriptive text and sourcing, and then to allow redirects to individual rows (using table row anchors like id=JW Marriott Tower Hotel ).

About AFDs about individual tall buildings or about lists of them, they should not be allowed. Partly because too many editors come along and try to make a career for themselves in tilting away at them. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This building fails WP:NBUILD which says that commerical buildings may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. That's not happening here. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course outright "delete" cannot be the sensible outcome. "Merge" of the two list-articles to one list of tallest buildings or structures in Qatar is obviously sensible, IMHO. And "merge" of the JW Marriott Tower Hotel article to its list-article row (or possibly "redirect" if one wants to assert absolutely zero value to the existing article) is superior. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, if someone specific agrees to do the work, would support a merge. Elinruby (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a closer can and should make an AFD outcome of "Merge" whether or not there is such a volunteer, just because it is the right thing to do. The closer does not need to effect the merge, but, per wp:AfD and mergers, rather can use "((afd-mergeto)) and ((afd-mergefrom)) tags on the appropriate pages, which tags the articles for merging via ordinary editing. The XFDcloser gadget supports these tags."

If it is necessary for someone to imagine that a specific person will do it, just say I will do it, close the AfD, and then I either will or won't. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 16:33, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

InterContinental Doha The City[edit]

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

Zero in-depth refs from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Was sent to draft in hopes of improvement, but returned to mainspace without any. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Qatar. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found this press release, which I do not think is proof of notability. Otherwise just the expected booking sites. Elinruby (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage.Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation Tower[edit]

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

Zero in-depth refs from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Was sent to draft in hopes of improvement, but returned to mainspace without any. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Qatar. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Before is just giving me a bunch of false positives. Not seeing any evidence of notability Elinruby (talk) 23:50, 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. This is close, but on the balance there is consensus to delete. I am very cognizant of the issue of systemic bias, but there's only so far that argument can take us, and here we are also discussing a 1991 film from an enormous industry in a country with substantial English-language media. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saathi (1991 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

PROD removed with "Afd it" DonaldD23 talk to me 13:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources had been added even before this AfD, and there are plenty of sources available online. Needs expansion, not deletion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the added sources are reviews. Two of the books only have one line devoted to the film, another book is just a database listing. One book doesn't have a preview available so I cannot judge its merit...but even in the off chance it is a thorough review, one isn't enough for notability requirements. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23: Read WP:GNG. That you do not have access to the books, doesn't mean it's not a proper source. And finally, you should know by now, no sources from the era prior to the 2000s are available from the Indian press online. Your logic would mean no Indian film from older Hindi cinema could be notable. I object. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledged that the one book I couldn't access might be counted toward notability, so I am not sure what your disagreement it? As for the other 2 books that I do have access to...they are just a one line mention and you should know by now that that is not anywhere close to meeting WP:GNG guidelines. Existing does not mean inclusion on Wikipedia. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23: Let's agree to disagree and let the community decide. I've said it many times, I see tremendous bias against Indian articles just because they do not have the amount of coverage present in the west. I'm not accusing you specifically, I'm sure you mean well, it's a systemic problem on WP which should be fought against. I felt it everywhere, when I worked on FAs, GAs, and other instances. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources are non-RS for sure. Fails WP:GNG unless new sources can be found and added. Current sourcing for from sufficient.— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Moops: The books cited are non-RS? What are you basing youself on? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the fact that 2 of them are just one line mentions. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23: RS is about reliability, not extent of coverage. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but GNG is about significant coverage. And one line in a book does not meet that. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23: Moops did not mention GNG, only RS - so I can't see why you'd defend that. And one line can establish notability, depends on what it says. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV is also a valid concern, thanks Donaldd23. Books, being primary sources, are okay, but not by themselves without substantiated secondary sources from a GNG standpoint. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One line in a book can establish notability? Please, please link the policy that says that. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23: Please show where it says in SIGCOV that one line is excluded from establishing notability. SIGCOV talks about trivial mentions, and it's not the same thing. If one line says, "X, which is considered one of the best Indian films of all time", that wouldn't qualify as a trivial mention - it's one line but one that carries a lot of weight. The books cited on the page do not provide trivial mentions, in my opinion (neither do they give deep coverage but that is beside the point). Further information is provided about the film's budget, box-office performance, theme. The film definitely gets sufficient coverage and all the mentions together create what I believe is notability per WP:GNG. That's why I'm saying, it's better to agree to disagree. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty broad definition of SIGCOV covering one line. A statement by someone saying something is "the best of all time" is trivial unless backed up by multiple independent and reputable critics. I can publish a book saying that "Mouse Rat is one of the best bands ever", but that does not make it SIGCOV. But, yes, lets agree to disagree and let other editors weigh in. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment more sources added, including an entry from no less than Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema, box-office information by India Today with details about budget and BO verdict, and controversy related to its Pakistani star. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like many films it's difficult to find extensive coverage, but the article looks acceptable to me in it's current form.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well sourced and satisfies WP:GNG as well as WP:NFILM. The nominator seems to be prejudiced against Indian films and even got Puthiya Vaarpugal deleted, when it had a reliable review and other reliable sources; he seemingly did not search for more sources or consult others when an AfD could have alerted more users. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (for now) Ref#1 Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema - Verifies that the film exists, nothing towards notability #2 BollywoodHungama - database entry for verification #3 Queer Asian Cinema has a trivial mention that the film is about male-bonding. #4 BollySwar - More or less a database in the form of a book #5 India Today - Provides budget and box-office verdict (aka trivial mention) #6 Tribune - Primary source (need to be discarded to prove notability) #7 White on Green - Mentions one of the lead character's (Mohsin's) favourite performance and describes what he does in the film aka description of the film aka plot summary [that we usually write in the lead] - all trivial #8 Crossover stars - A mention of Mohsin's successful film which is this film ——— I don't think the sources presented in the article count towards GNG. Since all being trivial mentions, they need to collectively establish GNG, which I believe are not. While there certainly ~~will~~ could be offline sources, in an AfD one should actually present them despite them being hard to find. Perhaps someday someone will be able to uncover them and the article could be revived. WP:NEXIST encourages editors to consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any, as such I'm still undecided on what my !vote would be. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC) (14:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]
The new ref #7 Deccan Chronicle - Comment from the director - primary source. While the book "Crossover stars" says the film is Mohsin's successful film, it is unclear if that is a major part of their career - from WP:NF#Inclusionary criteria. "Most successful film" ≠ "major part of their career" unless stated by WP:RS

Addressing a comment from above: no sources from the era prior to the 2000s are available from the Indian press online. Since we are at AfD determining the notability, these sources need to be uncovered as we must verify. Offline sources are acceptable but not a broad veil argument that "[they are] available from xyz" without providing any WP:NRV evidence. WP:N's second line reads: Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. As such.. delete — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC) (amended 14:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently looks like no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - more sources have been added, including information about a recent film which happens to be loosly inspired by the current picture. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are in-depth reviews. They are all passing mentions. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23: They do not have to be in-depth reviews. We actually see that a recent movie was inspired by this film. If this isn't evidence of the original's notability, I don't know what is. That's why I said that you appear to misinterpret the idea of "mention" in the context of WP:GNG. But let it be, we've had enough of these arguments. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking forward to hearing from other editors on this one — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 10:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless better sources are found. Passing mentions don't satisfy WP:NFILM. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DaxServer. The references IMO appear to be mentions, listings, databases, or other short/routine coverage quoted from the director. I personally consider these to be non-SIGCOV but feel free to disagree here. My WP:BEFORE located more mentions, i.e., 1, 2, 3, which IMHO doesn't meet significant coverage as well. VickKiang (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DaxServer's very well reasoned commentary above. The sources presented, for my interpretation of "significant coverage", aren't up to scratch to demonstrate notability here. Daniel (talk) 10:35, 19 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. Daniel (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kinja Dixon[edit]

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

An article by a new editor, which was draftified but then moved back into mainspace by the article creator. The subject has worked as a salesperson for Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Vacation Ownership [26], a speaker at various events, has published several books. I don't see the sales awards as inherently notable for WP:ANYBIO, nor the Goodreads and Fredericksburg Parent & Family items for WP:NAUTHOR. Such coverage as is available is not indicative of attained notability here - the best is possibly the Virginian Pilot (2019) item but that is local coverage - falling short of the WP:BASIC / WP:ANYBIO requirements. AllyD (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and United States of America. AllyD (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks significant coverage. --Mvqr (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much of anything found for sourcing. Spokesman for various things, nothing notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We lack the reviews that would be needed to pass WP:AUTHOR and I didn't see evidence of any other kind of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:45, 18 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) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 07:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William (footballer, born 1982)[edit]

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

~~The subject does not meet Wikipedia notability standards based on the cited references. If there are other opinions, please share here.JRed176 (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)~~ - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because the article is a stub doesn't mean this isn't a notable footballer, he played fully professional football for a few Portuguese Premier League clubs including F.C. Paços de Ferreira. soccerway stats. Sources should be there for this, a guy with this kind of career should have sources. I see it stats on soccerway he won the Copa Rio, looks like a smaller tournament, sources for that? I was having a look, it does seem tough to find sources know. Govvy (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. I agree there should be sources, but I can't find any. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: searched his full name and found something of a scandal around his signing with FC Anzhi Makhachkala [27] [28]. "Anzhi Makhachkala's Europa League bonuses at risk over William transfer" - Anzhi's conduct in signing Brazilian forward William Arthur Conceicao dos Santos in April 2010 was "unethical and unlawful," Onsoccer director Antonio Araujo said in a written statement to the Associated Press. William spent less than one month as an Anzhi player before returning to Portugal when officials ordered him from the team hotel in Moscow at 3 a.m. before a match, according to a ruling when CAS first judged the dispute last year. "We had no other choice than (recourse) to the Swiss courts in order to freeze the monies that Anzhi is entitled to receive from UEFA, via the Russian Football Association," Araujo said. Also about (not) joining Romanian Astra Ploiesti [29] [30]. Also found some more mentions with other teammates. No idea whats this about: [31] I'm sure there's more sources and offline ones too. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think there's enough for me to keep, but with the nominator being a sock I cannot support deletion anymore either. Giant Snowman 19:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above, mostly about the Anzhi case. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Anzhi references provide GNG. But also, this should be a procedural keep because it was nominated by a Sock. Nfitz (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should not entertain nominations started by socks and therefore close this. If someone in good standing opens up a 2nd nomination following a WP:BEFORE, that should be permitted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think that we can close this early because the editor made this nomination before being blocked, obviously. Therefore it can't be speedily ended (this is my interpretation of this. We must wait until it's been 7 days since the nomination was made. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Anzhi reference.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:34, 18 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. Daniel (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Burton[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. First reference is a self-published book by the article creator, second are some statistics. No better sources found in GBooks or regular Google[32]. Fram (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and England. Fram (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Agreed that there is no evidence of notability, at least not that can be found online. I agree that the self-published book is not significant coverage, not because it was published by the article creator but moreso because he actually isn't in the book. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Fram (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very easy call. No evidence of notability anywhere to be found. A self published book doesn’t count. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not able to find any sources or coverage with reliability. JojoMN1987 (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This rider rode at the highest level in British Speedway (British League) for multiple teams. There are dozens of riders with wikipedia entries that have only rode at the second tier level of the time (National League) and it would be churlish to delete just one entry when a very informative set of biographies is being created for what historically was one of the most popular spectator sports in the UK. The references are not great, agreed, prefer to flag the article to find better references than delete it (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a good reason to keep an article. All the other users involved in the discussion so far have failed to find any sources to support notability. If you think there are sources out there that we four have somehow missed, please provide evidence of that. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 5225c. No prejudice against recreation if offline sources can be found. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:30, 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. This is a tough one, and has been open nearly a month. Between BLP concerns and challenges with a potential merger target itself, even in a tight discussion- deletion is the course of action especially given the same issues have been raised in the prior AfD and while I note That it hasn't been improved does not mean it cannot be improved, there have been nearly 3 years and no indication of actual soourcing to sufficiently improve this. Star Mississippi 03:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Zamora[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Things have not improved and we are now in the situation where this is looking more and more like it's going to end up in WP:FRINGEBLP territory except it does not seem that many have noticed his peculiar ideas. I am sympathetic to the concern that his early work might be notable, but I think we really need to have third-party independent sources about the man in order to write a biography of him. As it is, we just do not have that and none seem to be forthcoming. Maybe at some point some third-party biographies will be published which will help us provide contextualization. Until then, we really shouldn't be hosting such poorly sources biographies for obvious reasons. Previous AfD did not seem to deal substantively with the lack of sources independent of Zamora which is what we will need to do anything like a cleanup. I cannot find any either. jps (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Computing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1 as before. If, as the nominator states, nothing has changed since the last AfD, then I don't see why my opinion or for that matter the outcome should change. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found any sources that would allow us to write a neutral article on this character? Since there does not seem to be any way to make this article actually neutral or sourced to reliable sources, what recourse do you suggest? jps (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted above, there is a lack of findable, independent third-party sources to demonstrate that he is notable enough for Wikipedia. Simply having published peer-reviewd papers and having patents does not automatically make a person notable, unless there are sources that show that they are siginficant in some form or fashsion. Paul H. (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That it hasn't been improved does not mean it cannot be improved. —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from what happened after the last AFD, nobody was either interested in or could find anything to just that. That can be said of any Wikipedia article up for AFD. In addition, specifically how does this article pass general notability? Paul H. (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fallacious argument unless you can demonstrate how it can be improved. jps (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge Notable per WP:PROF. Early work was highly cited. See original AfD discussion. However, doesn't meet WP:BASIC. In this case WP:BIOSPECIAL suggests merging into a broader article. In this case a new article on SPEEDCOP might be appropriate. BruceThomson (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps create a stub? I cannot find sources on SPEEDCOP as it is well outside my expertise. jps (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this person has some early articles (e.g. 1970's) on what today we would call "spellcheck" that were cited >100 times. His "consultant" business does not have visible academic output, and does seem to have drifted over into the non-scientific area of "psychics". I don't see enough for NPROF nor do I find GNG evidence. There do not seem to be independent sources for biographical information. Lamona (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A Merge was suggested but with no target specified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some serious BLPFRINGE concerns here. He has two books listed, one is published by his own consulting company and I believe falls under self-published sources, and the second is to a publisher whose site seems dedicated to selling psychic reading ads complete with a page hijack ad consisting of a disembodied Ms. Cleo head floating across page content. Extremely uninspiring for sourcing purposes. --(loopback) ping/whereis 10:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are two questions here. (1) the Fringe concerns; that he has created a consulting company and self-published doesn't undermine what he did before, so if he was notable for his previous scientific career, he remains notable. Forget the fringe. (2) But for the rest, the reason everyone's disagreeing is that some people are using general notability, and others are extrapolating him from industrial scientist into WP:NPROF-space and judging his primary publications and influence of his work as evidence of criterion 1. I think it's illogical to deny NPROF to all who've done their science in an industrial sphere, thereby excluding from WP a lot of people whose work has changed the way the world operates, but who didn't get in the newspapers (scientists, even engineers, rarely do). If you're going to have NPROF, it mustn't be restricted to universities. On that basis I think he's a weak keep. Elemimele (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right about the two elements of the discussion here. However, I do not think that he meets NPROF. That is because, although he had some moderately well-cited papers, he does not meet any of the criteria of NPROF. We have nothing that would say that he had a significant impact in his field, that he held a notable position, nor that he has received a major award. I just don't see it. Lamona (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona: Yes, you have a point. That's why I put him down as a rather weak keep rather than a solid keep; I think he's very much borderline, so I'm not greatly surprised if others assess his impact less enthusiastically than I do. Elemimele (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd rather not close this like the first, AFD, as "No consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published references and small coverage from peer-reviewed papers several decades ago. I don't see anything we can salvage and the article doesn't seem to be at GNG even. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not seeing anything to support meeting NPROF, which, right or wrong, is restricted to academics: people whose impact can be assessed through their scholarly or educational contributions. Non-publishing industrial scientists can absolutely be notable through their leadership in technology, product design, implementation, etc., but like fashion designers and architects and other creative professionals the only available way to document this with SIRS is through GNG. A handful of articles in IS and trade journals is not sufficient for NPROF C1a, and the evidence for C1b is similarly lacking, so we're left with GNG as our notability criteria and I don't believe he meets that either. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. As said before, there is a lack of findable, independent third-party sources to demonstrate that he is notable enough for Wikipedia. Lack of notable poisitions, major awards, and any source indicating that he made any significant, long-lasting constributions to his field. Self-published publciations, average number and qulaity of peer-reviewd papers and articles in trade journals. Agree with above comments that he neither meets NPROF not GNG. Paul H. (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Striking second Delete vote. You already voted (above). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 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 speedy keep. Almost all consensus was to keep this article. (non-admin closure) `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 15:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krakoa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Just a lot of fancruft. Article does not indicate that this is a notable element of the comic books. Zero in-depth coverage to show any real-world notability. Everything is in-universe. User:Nekivik^{TT me} 10:59, 8 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. ^{TT me} 11:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current article is really bad, but as shown at the last AfD, independent sources do exist that discuss Krakoa in a real-world context (e.g., The Mutant Land: How the Island Krakoa Dictates the Mutant Society in House of X and Representations of Israel, literal and allegorical, in X-Men comics), so the subject is notable. OliveYouBean (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the results of the last AFD, there is sufficient sourcing to show it as notable. BOZ (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: K because then the information will not be deleted if someone want to edit with references in distant future. Notable sources that pass the minimum standards of GNG in last Afd were to be used on this page. Those sources aren't added in this page till date. While the references are almost same as during first Afd. Unless those sources showing real-world notability are being added, the page is still not notable.

Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of WP:N is that the sources just have to exist for the subject to be notable, not that they have to be currently used in the article. At WP:ARTN it says Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. (emphasis mine) So even if the sources aren't used in the article, it is still notable and the page should still be kept. OliveYouBean (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

This page clearly fails WP:NOTPLOT: Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia does treat works of fiction in an encylopedic manner. That means if the sources exist to be able to do this, the subject should get an article. The sources exist to be able to do this (I linked a couple in my vote), so the subject passes WP:N and should have an article. Notability is about the subject, not the article. OliveYouBean (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OliveYouBean I was pointing that page fails WP:NOTPLOT, one of the main reasons for getting deleted as per WP:DEL-REASON. See instruction page for 14th point of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Only one above-mentioned source is reliable. Just existing in-world notability sources doesn't mean it is always reliable. According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable; so Representations of Israel, literal and allegorical, in X-Men comics fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The journal uses a double-blind peer review process for all submissions. Taylor & Francis Online is a reliable repository that would not lie about that. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: K per my rationale in the prior AfD, which can be summarized as: yes, this is potentially notable. No, the article does not show this. This is currently fancruft and should be just a redirect, until someone actually bothers to read the sources found and write a section about reception or analysis. I'd be happy to vote keep when that happens. Until that happens, this does not meet WP:NOTPLOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article's subject meets WP:GNG. Nothing has changed since the previous AfD in terms of notability in that regard. The article may need work, but deletion is not cleanup. I'm also concerned about how certain editors were notified of this discussion, as only those who have suggested not keeping the article previously seem to have been notified. They notified the previous AfD's nom and notified the only other active editor who suggested something other than to keep at the previous AfD, and skipped over the seven editors who suggested keeping the article. They also notified an editor who suggested redirecting a similar article and made a similar argument about the state of this article as the nom. I'm not saying it was done maliciously or in bad faith but if we're going to individually notify editors of an AfD, it shouldn't only be those who would be likely to agree with you. - Aoidh (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That being the case, I'd say it's fair to ping @Jc37, @Rtkat3, @Haleth, @Jackattack1597, @Daranios, @Qwaiiplayer, and @Rhino131 from the last AFD as well as its closer @4meter4 to see if they maintain their opinions from 15 months ago, or have anything new to add. Additionally, I noticed something weird in this AFD, where the nominator edited a comment by another user which I reverted, then they did it again but self-reverted, which is odd enough, but then the user whose comments were edited changed it back to what the nominator had done, so I'm not exactly sure what that means but it is unusual. BOZ (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this before because they tried to ping me while editing someone else's message, which just seemed... bizarre? Since then things have become (in my opinion) weirder. They went on a spree of notifying users about this AfD, then promptly retired due to "limited knowledge of various wikipedia rules and processes". I have no idea what that's about. I hope they weren't discouraged by people's messages at their talk page. OliveYouBean (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ I am not sure why I was pinged to this discussion. I did not offer an opinion in the first or second AFDs. I was the neutral closer of the 2nd AFD which I closed as keep because there were no votes for deletion in the 2nd nomination other than the nominator. Consensus in that discussion was clearly to keep the article. I have no opinion on this particular topic. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since there were plenty of sources to establish N for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiet Council of Krakoa, it follows logically that those also establish notability for the parent topic. Both editors in favor of redirection admit that regular editing could fix any current problems with the page... so there's really no case for deletion at all. Jclemens (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD for Quiet Council resulted in a merge/redirect to Krakoa. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the previous discussions already noted; per Jclemens, above, who I think said it better than I could've; per everyone else on this page; and really per common sense. Sigh. Maybe we need to take another look at how subjective GNG is, if we're going to continually see it merely being repeatedly used as code for WP:IDONTLIKEIT... - jc37 12:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me the argumentation for deletion is again based on the current state of the article, which is explicitely not decisive according to WP:NEXIST. It has been shown in this and previous deletion discussions that secondary sources exist to establish notability. The way to solve the problem with too much plot summary is therefore not deletion but improvement with the help of these sources. There is no deadline for such improvements, and no specific Wikipedian is required to do anything, but as usual I'd expect those most offended by the current imperfect state of the article to be the first ones to take action for improvement. Daranios (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims as last time and the claims of @OliveYouBean:, @BOZ:, @Aoidh:, @Jclemens:, @Jc37:, and @Daranios:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous discussion and I agree with the above conversation that the argument for this deletion is not particularly strong. Deletion is not cleanup after all. Aoba47 (talk) 01:11, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julianna Guill[edit]

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

An editor, Jenepidia10, has placed an AfD tag on this article without providing a reason, beyond the following at the talk page: "I propose to delete this page due to lack of notability." See also [33]. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep – This a 'C-class' article, so there is no question that it is sufficiently sourced (and likely can be sourced further: see this discussion as well), and there is also no question that the subject easily clears WP:NACTOR since her breakthrough in Friday the 13th (2009 film). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:27, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, subject clearly meets WP:NACTOR based on substantial roles, including a main role in a current TV series. BD2412 T 02:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: subject has received plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:BASIC. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Most of her parts are bit parts or one-offs, other than the Sweet 16 movie, which itself seems barely notable for Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Appears to meet WP:NACTOR 38.140.49.92 (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly doesn’t seem to meet the notability guidelines.She has mostly only had very small roles which are not noteworthy. Shsuhxttuserjame (contribs • talk) 21:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC) — Shsuhxttuserjame (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The same goes for User:Jenepidia10. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Swayed by the borderline coverage and arguments from several trusted editors for keep MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:16, 19 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!} 02:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Margeas[edit]

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

Undisclosed paid editing. Seems to not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortex3427 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Medicine, and Iowa. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So he's a dentist, that attends and is a member of professional associations? I'm basically that in my profession, not notable. Inside Dentistry doesn't seem to be a peer-reviewed journal, so no shot at ACADEMIC. Oaktree b (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to the paid editing site shared above, at least he'll get to keep his page on Wikialpha... I boggles my mind that people pay for a wikipedia article to be created, when it can be done for free. You can even ask at AfC to have it created for you, for free. But you want to drop $400 to that person to do it, have at it I guess. Oaktree b (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One: what's WikiAlpha? Two: I don't know how much dentists get paid, but I'm guessing it's a lot? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 04:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found out what WikiAlpha is. I also found out that, despite WikiAlpha not caring about notability at all and allowing you to create any page, there is still a paid editing site for $50 for a WikiAlpha article. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 04:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, it's a wikipedia rip-off site, one of hundreds out there. I guess dentists make lots of money as well... If you're notable, we'll create your article here for free. If you have to pay someone, that's probably not a good sign for notability. Same idea with the socks that come out. They only come out when someone isn't notable, otherwise, it would be pointless as the article would be kept on its own merit. Oaktree b (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage. He has authored a few papers apparently (usually under Robert, not Bob), but the most cited one has 25 citations and the next one has 6, so that's not a significant academic influence. --Mvqr (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's plenty of promotionalism in sight but a lack of in-depth coverage in sources that are not promotional (and therefore independent enough for GNG). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Iowauniguy (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:15, 18 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!} 02:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The First Time (2009 film)[edit]

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

No third-party reviews. No sources cited other than IMDb. Clearly fails WP:NFILM. Numberguy6 (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find no significant coverage in secondary, independent sources. No reviews able to be located. Happy to reconsider if someone manages to locate some sources that meet WP:NFILM. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: has no reliable or secondary sources to suggest any notability. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 02:52, 12 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Elder[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. A search of her name mainly yields namesakes and nothing indepth. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WesSirius (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if she inspired a character in a play, that seems notable. The source doesn't seem to back it up thought. What do others think? CT55555(talk) 02:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think inspiring a character necessarily indicates notability, but please take a look at the article again, me and DaffodilOcean added some more content. Mujinga (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, and Women. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jennifer Elder as cited by other editors seems to lack WP:SIGCOV Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "My Book of Autism Heroes" passes WP:AUTHOR still coverage of author is less but could expand the article.Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the various book reviews of her two books indicate that she passes NAUTHOR Mujinga (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a few book reviews in peer-reviewed journals for her book, seems like an AUTHOR pass to me. Oaktree b (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Book of Autism Heroes was the book. Oaktree b (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems sufficiently notable. CT55555(talk) 05:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on reviews of the subject's books, the article passes WP:AUTHOR. While there could be more coverage of the subject with an expansion of the article, it meets WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are several reviews of her books, therefore this author passes WP:NAUTHOR, and the article should be retained. Netherzone (talk) 03:34, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Stup[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Could not find significant indepth coverage about her. Very few articles link to this. LibStar (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This [34] and [35], she won an award from the State of Maryland. Reported on in the newspaper and the governor's office. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Oaktree. While this is far from the strongest keep out there, the weak coverage is just enough to persuade me against deletion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Poetry, and Disability. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC - e.g. A 'way out of a lonely place' (Baltimore Sun, 2006) is in-depth coverage focused on her and her writing; Shops to showcase items from people The Arc serves (The Frederic News-Post, 2015) has a focus on her collective work; Paul and his Beast (Kirkus Reviews, 2015); Meet Sarah Stup: Author with autism who has much to say about inclusion (Chapman University, 2017, an interview with context), and in the available preview of Disability and the Good Human Life (2013), her writing is quoted at 228; the preceding page that appears to have more content is not available, while the GBooks preview says "… Sarah Stup began using supported typing in 1991 at the age of eight. In response to a lecture in a high school science class about genetic issues and fetal testing for Williams syndrome …". At the WP Library, via EBSCOhost, there is Exceptional Parent. Oct2008, Vol. 38 Issue 10, p24-26. 3p. (abstract: "The article describes how a young woman with disability has paved a way for herself as a poet, essayist, children's author and advocate. Sarah Stup has made a choice to forgo traditional employment options for people with disabilities and to pursue the seemingly improbable option of becoming an author. It discusses the impact of autism on Sarah's ability to control her body." - full text is available; the author is affiliated with ARC). Beccaynr (talk) 18:06, 12 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!} 01:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Church[edit]

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

Promotional article about quite new church with no claim to notability. All references in the article are the church itself, and my BEFORE search found nothing but minor routine coverage that would exist for any church. Speedy and PROD contested without addressing any of these issues Mojo Hand (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Virginia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[36], [37] is what I found. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are hundreds of Hope Churches across Canada and the USA, I can't find anything for this particular one. One of many I think, nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one reliable secondary source does not an article make. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very generic church with a very generic name which is under many different denominations. I do think this title should go somewhere or become an overall DAB for things with the 'Hope Church' title. Nate • (chatter) 01:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:NCHURCH. Hmee2 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-primary sources only affirm the subject's existence, which does not indicate notability. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- an unexceptional local church. The only thing that might be unusual is the retail element, but I doubt that is sufficient to make it notable. If kept, rename to Hope Church, Richmond or such like. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 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.