< January 17	January 19 >

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) 22:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Carlucci[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, city councillors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to demonstrate a reason why they could be credibly considered to have far more nationalized significance than most other city councillors have -- but with 54 of the 83 footnotes here (65 per cent) being primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the rest of them being run of the mill local coverage of the type that every city councillor in every city can always show, that has not been demonstrated at all. This, further, has some advertorialized overtones, with parts of it sounding very much like this was written to actively promote his upcoming re-election campaign, which is not what Wikipedia articles about politicians are for.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from actually having to pass WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator. Promotional article with no sources that pass WP:NPOL. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP: POLITICIAN, "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" is met by this article. Furthermore, according to WP: NOTABILITY guidelines, "content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies," of which this article adheres. "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources," which this article also heeds in its approach to noting Jacksonville history through the timeline of a notable local politician which impacted that local history and key legislation. JaxMa (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of a city councillor is not secured by the simple existence of local coverage in his own city's local media — every city councillor on the planet would always pass that test, which would render NPOL #2 meaningless because no city councillor would ever actually have to be measured against it at all anymore. A city councillor's notability is secured by showing that he has received nationalized coverage beyond just his own local media market and demonstrating a reason why he could be seen as one of the most individually important city councillors in the entire country, which has not been shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per as nom. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Fails WP:NPOL and the level of coverage is not above the amount expected for a local politician. There is a strong case that deletion under WP:TNT also applies. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP: POLITICIAN states: "a person who is 'part of the enduring historical record' will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." This description describes the subject/individual as evidenced by the significant press coverage cited in the article. Additions could certainly be made to increase the amount of press coverage cited; however, as the author/contributor, I favored brevity. Regarding your statement: that "parts of it sounding very much like this was written to actively promote his upcoming re-election campaign," I must respectfully disagree. As the author/contributor, I am not a participant in this individual's campaign, and to write an article with "advertorialized overtones" for the purpose of promoting re-election would be nonsensical given this individual is running uncontested. JaxMa (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There has been a solid consensus here at Wikipedia that local politicians have to be shown to be notable. Unlike national and state politicians, who are presumed to be notable, local pols have to have quite a significant volume and depth of media coverage. Their own affiliated websites and a few mentions in the local news does not cut it. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 24 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. Significant work and multiple sources added since nomination, consensus this is a notable author. Valereee (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Valereee (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne Bouchard[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The only notability claim being made here is that her work exists, and the only source being cited is an author profile on the self-published website of her own publisher (which is not a notability-assisting source, as it isn't independent) -- and while the French article is considerably longer, it doesn't even cite one source at all. And while there are other potential notability claims not being stated in the article if you search for her name in the articles Prix Robert-Cliche, Scott Moncrieff Prize and CWA International Dagger, none of those awards are highly meganotable enough to constitute notability freebies in the absence of much better sourcing than just a single directly-affiliated source.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to clear WP:GNG on considerably more than just one primary source profile for referencing. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep her work has been studied in two peer-reviewed journals, one from the UK [1] and one in Italian [2] Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and she won a Crime-fiction award, some coverage here [3] Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] Apologies for just dumping these here, but here are some sources (mostly in French; my French could be better) which may help towards WP:GNG... [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Nice work, Bridget. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Oaktree B CT55555(talk) 21:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the sources presented by Oaktree B and Paul Erik, I have expanded the article with coverage of her novels from 2006 to 2022, mainly from Le Devoir and La Presse (among others) which cover biography details, critical reception, and awards. Reviews I didn't incorporate into the article text were included in the bibliography. Bridget (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I am going to add that "WorldCat" holdings have become the "gold standard" for authors. In this case, "We were the salt of the sea by Roxanne Bouchard : 8 editions published between 2017 and 2018 in English and held by 134 WorldCat member libraries worldwide." Another book she wrote is held by almost 100 libraries, and a few more by dozens. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 24 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) 22:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Maldonado[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Subject does not even appear to have a profile on the Fight Matrix database, and has not made the top 10 of Sherdog's rankings. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 22:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sherdog shows him with 2 victories in 8 fights. Never ranked by fightmatrix and I think it's safe to say he was never world top 10 at Sherdog. I found no significant independent coverage of him, just the usual listings in databases. Fails to meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG and nothing to suggest any other notability criteria is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:NMMA or WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:49, 25 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 Saint Mark's Basilica, Heraklion. Daniel (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Visual Arts[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. I could not any sources searching under its name or alternate name n"Museum of Plastic Arts". Note there are many other museums called "Museum of Visual Arts". The supplied reference is a dead link. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it seems that this article describes the Heraklion Municipal Art Gallery, part of Saint Mark's Basilica, Heraklion. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Greece. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saint Mark's Basilica, Heraklion. It's literally part and parcel. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saint_Mark's_Basilica,_Heraklion#Modern_period where it's mentioned already. Star Mississippi 22:09, 24 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) 22:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Trentmann[edit]

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

I thought this was just a fluffy COI-inflected biography but the subject was notable, but on second thoughts I'm not so sure: is there really any proper secondary sourcing here? The position the subject occupies is not in itself notable, but it is possible that she is; I really can't find any secondary sourcing, and nothing on the internet besides the usual professional (primary) links. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking for sources is challenging, because search results are swamped by things she's written, but with that caveat I'm currently unable to find anything biographical from a reasonable source. Clearly a prolific commentator, but that's not the same thing as being notable. If someone else finds sources I'm willing to reconsider. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanamonde, we've had such discussions before--it's harder for journalists to prove their notability because they often don't generate meta commentary. This subject may well be more important than a whole bunch of YouTubers who have articles--but if there's no coverage, there's no coverage... Drmies (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Drmies: Agreed on all counts. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Finance, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a reason why her biological data is so hard to source as there is so little SIGCOV on her. Wikipedia is becoming the main platform of her notability, which is not right. 31.187.2.233 (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:50, 25 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) 22:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Belmonte[edit]

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

Despite the article saying "She was best known for her magazine covers", almost all the coverage is about her death. Even if we rename this article Death of Helena Belmonte it would not meet WP:EVENT as it doesn't meet WP:LASTING. LibStar (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, Philippines, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:ROTM. Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR. Her IMDB entry only have her role as "Girl #2" for a 2009 short film. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:35, 24 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 Dell XPS#XPS 730X, XPS 730X H2C. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dell XPS 730x[edit]

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

This page was initially redirected to Dell XPS#XPS 730X, XPS 730X H2C by Czar for (I quote) dearth of substantial and in-depth, dedicated reliable sources (needs at least several). I have had a second look at the article and the only sources in here are to other Wikipedia articles, blog posts, a brochure, self-published sources, and what appears to be original research. The article also reads like a manual, being excessively technical in scope and seems more for a PC-building enthusiast than a general audience. The creator of the article has insisted that a discussion be held before "deleting", but I would argue that a redirect suffices, given the lack of proper sources and encyclopedic content. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, nor is it a catalogue of every variant of every manufacturer's products. The tone and content of the article currently shout "technical manual", which is unencyclopedic. The lack of reliable independent sources is exactly what one would expect if someone was trying to put a manual here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. This reads like some sort of techie manual on how to upgrade the thing. Oaktree b (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and others. Pavlor (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dell XPS#XPS 730X, XPS 730X H2C, an alternative to deletion for lack of sourcing, as went my edit summary and as goes this nomination czar 00:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dell XPS#XPS 730X, XPS 730X H2C Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:52, 25 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. Nomination withdrawn. The article was significantly improved and I now believe the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bridewell[edit]

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

~~Fails to meet WP:NSPORTS. Drafted to the NFL in the 12th round in 1991 but failed to ever make the roster. He was signed by an NFL Europe team, but never took the field for them either.~~ Hey man im josh (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Withdrawn by nominator. The article has been improved a great deal by BeanieFan11 and it's a clear WP:SNOW. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and American football. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet GNG with Newspapers.com coverage: It's bombs away for UC Davis (p2) from The Napa Valley Register; Bridewell trying to stick as Packers' 'other' QB from the Green Bay Press-Gazette; Jeff Bridewell (p2) from the first; Bridewell named to all-star game (p2) from the first; and Bridewell running out of patience with NFL (p2) from The Sacramento Bee. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added references mentioned above and expanded the article from its previous state to meet the requirements.Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:SPORTCRIT with WP:SIGCOV Bruxton (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like additional entries have met WP:N.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:51, 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. BusterD (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Paul vs. Hasim Rahman Jr.[edit]

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

This article is about an event (boxing match) that never took place and was cancelled less than a month after being announced. The content was originally included at Jake Paul vs. Tommy Fury but it was forked by a user. I believe a trimmed version of this content should be at Jake Paul vs. Tommy Fury and not as its own stand-alone article. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Boxing. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page originally simply Jake Paul vs. Hasim Rahman Jr., however I moved the page to Jake Paul vs. Tommy Fury, and changed the article to be about that fight, with small mentions about the cancelled Hasim Rahman Jr. fight. User:GhaziTwaissi removed all mentions to the cancelled Hasim Rahman Jr. fight in Jake Paul vs. Tommy Fury, and changed Jake Paul vs. Hasim Rahman Jr. from being a redirect to Jake Paul vs. Tommy Fury, to effectivley being the original article about the cancelled fight.

Tbf69 09:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above the event the boxing match that never took place and was cancelled less than a month after being announced.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 25 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. BusterD (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third Reich NSDAP cabinet 1925[edit]

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

I believe this is a simple hoax, or if not a hoax, fringe theory or original research. There was no Third Reich in 1925. There was no NSDAP cabinet in 1925. The central claim, that the former crown prince pledged allegiance to the Nazis, is unsourced. Even if true, it does not validate the claim that this was the Third Reich, or that there was an NDSAP cabinet in 1925. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been deleted, then restored. I stated that This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --Stephen2nd (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC) These 22 members of the 1925 cabinet meeting of NSDAP, have been listed on the German Wikipedia for several years, the 22 member numbers are each individually referenced from 22 published authors. All I have done is transferred these numbers to the English Wikipedia, and added images to them. The details of the 22 individuals, are taken directly from their existing articles on their names. As an editor for several years, I believe that cross referencing existing allowed Wikipedia articles should not be disallowed. If you wish to change the title or any of the text you are welcome. Please keep the article until this matter has been debated. Stephen2nd (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

What has changed? Stephen2nd (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim that there was some sort of cabinet within the Nazi party in 1925 is completely unsourced. And as stated above, the Nazis wouldn't come to power until the next decade, so it wouldn't have been a "Third Reich" cabinet anyways. Jahaza (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment; Nazi Party#:~:text=On 16 February 1925, Hitler,of taking power by force. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess the German article being mentioned is de:Liste von NSDAP-Parteimitgliedsnummern which already has an English version. Giving a modicum of benefit of doubt, I still simply find no sourcing to indicate any significance to this particular set of Nazis by early membership number, this particular year, let alone the existence of a "Third Reich cabinet" of 1925. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources for the main claim, no justification for the title. According to the German Wikipedia, the number 24 for August Wilhelm von Preußen was issued in 1930, so this meeting is probably nonexistent. —Kusma (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia reference: Article - Nazi Party: Section - Rise to power: 1925–1933.

Adolf Hitler was released from prison on 20 December 1924. On 16 February 1925, Hitler convinced the Bavarian authorities to lift the ban on the NSDAP and the party was formally refounded on 26 February 1925, with Hitler as its undisputed leader. The new Nazi Party was no longer a paramilitary organisation and disavowed any intention of taking power by force.

This was edited into the Nazi Germany article in 2017. The article has had 7,773,488 pageviews, with an average of 3,839 views per day, for the last 2024 days. None of these 7.7m viewers contested its inclusion. Stephen2nd (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is true but totally irrelevant. Mccapra (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After the NSDAP ban was lifted, the refounded NSDAP in 1925 was the Nazi Party.

The numbers (1 – 24) led by Hitler, were the first 22 members of NSDAP from 1925.

The political structure of the new Nazi Party led by number (1); Author: Mein Kampf (political manifesto). (to his left) 2. Publisher: Mein Kampf. 3. NSDAP Business manager. 4. NSDAP Chairman. 5. NSDAP State Leader. 6. NSDAP National Treasurer. 8. NSDAP: National Leader for Propaganda. 9. NSDAP: parliamentary group leader. 10. NSDAP Party Leader. 11. NSDAP Deputy Manager.

13. NSDAP official Lawyer. 15. Hitler's Private secretary. &c. Stephen2nd (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well at this stage I hope you’re just trolling and having a good laugh, because if you genuinely can’t see the difference between the uncontested fact that the Nazi party in 1925 had members with membership numbers and the hallucinatory claim that in that year there was a Nazi party cabinet of the Third Reich, I think you may need to find a new hobby. Mccapra (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third Reich NSDAP cabinet 1925. According to the 2nd template; "Feel free to improve the article". In the past 5 days I have made 10 such improvement edits of apx 5000 bytes. My intention is to clarify the article in reference to the deletion discussion.

There are 4 sections of this article. 1. Opening text describing the theme of the article in direct reference to 22 numbers. 2. A block of the 22 numbers, containing the published references by 22 authors who published the 22 numbers, with names allotted to each number. 3. A block of the 22 names (linked to their individual articles), with images. / 4. The 22 section headings containing, my clip notes from the 22 articles of these names. Of these 4 sections, section 4 is already accessible in section 3, and therefore redundant. If I leave section 4 in the article, the clip notes may be expanded to the length of 22 articles! It is my intention to put these clip notes into section 2, for quick, basic references on 22 known individuals, using section 2 for access to fuller details. Section 4, will be used for two new (relevant to section 1) section headings. Reichskanzler' and Bundesrat.

As such, would there be any objection to deleting the 22 redundant section headings, putting the clip notes in 2 block, (what it was created for), and replacing these with the more-relevant Reichskanzler' and Bundesrat sections. If I am not allowed to do this, are there any objections/comments/discussions, to deleting the 22 sections in 4.

I believe that the/my final draft will be self evident, and hopefully acceptable to any critics of my starting draft, and final draft. Any constructive help will be appreciated. Stephen2nd (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article provides no evidence that anything calling itself the 'Third Reich NSDAP cabinet of 1925' actually existed. A membership list is not a cabinet. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all references to "cabinet", and have started two new sections. I cannot change the title due to these circumstances. This title is obviously redundant. Any advice for a new title for these 22 numbers? Regards Steve.Stephen2nd (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I propose a new title; NSDAP member list (1 - 24) ?

Stephen2nd (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, because you have provided absolutely no evidence through sources that 'NSDAP member list (1 - 24)' is a subject meeting Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to Goldsztajn above, "I guess the German article being mentioned is which already has an English version." The German list lists NSDAP members (1 - 10m), the English (this Wikipedia) only lists 1000 members, alphabetically. NB: The members (1 - 24) are not on the English Wikipedia. Stephen2nd (talk)

Stephen2nd (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is nonsense as are the arguments to keep it. Cullen328 (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like an obvious delete as it's claims are nonsensical and the editor who made it and is trying to keep it keeps making non-sequitur arguments.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:39, 23 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) 22:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Janowski[edit]

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

Does not appear to have played a game ("Alice Janowski compiled a career batting average of with 0 home runs and 0 RBI in her 0-game career with the Fort Wayne Daisies.") and is listed on the AAGPBL website as "This player has not been located. We have no additional information." Searches on Google, Newspapers.com, and in The women of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League: a biographical dictionary brought up no coverage. Fails WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Baseball, and Canada. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honorary inductee into the Canadian Hall of Fame is largely ceremonial, if they have no records, and none have been found, well that's not GNG. I looked on the Canadian HOF website and they don't have a listing for her. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of All-American Girls Professional Baseball League players (H–L), though quite frankly, delete would be ok too. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:56, 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) 22:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loretta Janowski[edit]

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

According to the AAGPBL website ([10]), Janowski/y signed a contract with the South Bend Blue Sox in 1951. However, no statistics are known and according to the AAGPBL "This player has not been located. We have no additional information." No coverage found in searches on Newspapers.com, Google, or in The women of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League: a biographical dictionary. Fails WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Baseball, and Indiana. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasoning as for the other AAGPBL player listed, if they say there are no records, there very likely are none. I don't find any online. Oaktree b (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of All-American Girls Professional Baseball League players (H–L) or delete. Fails WP:BASIC, let alone WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:00, 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. BusterD (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chedi Doi Trimoorati[edit]

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

No independent sources available, no article on Thai Wikipedia, almost all hits on Google are mirrors of Wikipedia. Not inherently notable by virtue of being a stupa. Kazamzam (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and Thailand. Kazamzam (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator Kazamzam (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced for 12 years. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, seems like no sign of improvement is possible. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 00:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Unless there are some in Thai that อุทยานธรรมกิตติลักษณ์ doesn't pick up, I'm not seeing any reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 13:52, 24 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) 22:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter John Watson[edit]

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

This is still strongly promotional. Over half of the sources provided are by Watson, his publishers, or his blog Atlas & Boots. The "Climb Every Mountain" articles is probably sourced by Watson as well since it's the same article or same verbiage claimed under different "writers". It's a laundry list of name dropping publications contributed to, and not much secondary coverage by any independent sources. Consider WP:IBA AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and Tourism, Climbing, Writing, and 20th Century Studios. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging 78.18.228.191, Mattdaviesfsic, Philoserf. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero hits in RS on this person, his first thing in Google is his website, then his facebook, then various other social media, then just anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the Guardian article is written by his friend/partner? That's hardly neutral. That's a first in AfD, I've not seen an article written by someone with a close connection to the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi s partner is Kia Abdullah, not Anna Derrig. Scratchvideo (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written by someone he's hugging and being close with in the photos, and she writes about him in a loving fashion, it's hardly a neutral source, whatever their relationship is or was at the time. Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about different articles.

> Derrig, Anna (2021-10-22). "Experience: I escaped an Arctic wildfire". The Guardian. Retrieved 2021-10-22. Derrig interviews him about his rescue in the Arctic during a wildfire.

> "Buying a house with a white man was instructive and depressing and it taught me about privilege". inews.co.uk. 2021-02-16. Retrieved 2021-02-26. This is just to support "Watson is in a relationship with British author Kia Abdullah." Scratchvideo (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional, G17 Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article (look at earlier versions), by an SPA who made the article (plus photo) in a few edits and stopped (i.e. a UPE). The real problem is zero SIGCOV in quality RS. Outside of their own writings, nobody wants to cover them in any depth. The AfC editor who cleared it, and made a strange move, should be checked. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete. If it looks like a duck, waddles like one, and quacks like one then it's likely a dog? No, you got it - a duck! There can be no tolerance for paid articles. It's totally unfair to others. No offense to the subject who is likely reading this, but who also may not be the person in question who created it. This is not personal and by all means, if what is said here is not accurate please provide your feedback and make the case please. JRed176 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Linguist111 (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion: I am a WP:GNOME mainly focused on technical editing of reference/citations. I leave content discussion for most articles to others. —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you for your comments. The article is not paid for or promotional and I am not a paid editor. It is, however, my first attempt at a Wikipedia entry. Watson is a climber and writer I have followed for some time. When I went to look him up after reading his books, I was surprised to find he wasn't on Wikipedia even though many of his co-authors were. If you don't think this person should have a page, that's fine, although obviously, I do. Regarding the sources, from what I can see, there are 5 written by Watson himself. These were included to demonstrate Watson had written for the publications and were included based on feedback from previous Wikipedia editors. From what I can tell, the different writers AngusW🐶🐶F alludes to are journalists for UK newspapers, The Guardian, The Yorkshire Post and The Darlington & Stockton Times. These publications have a long history dating back to 1821, 1754 and 1847 respectively. I believe these are reliable. I genuinely think the subject is noteworthy as he had been interviewed by local and national newspapers and regional television, published books and written for national newspapers. If you think otherwise, that's fine. But again, I want to be very clear that this is not paid for or promotional and I am not a paid editor. Additionally, I did not create the inverted name. Finally, I would ask all commenters to remember the Wikietiquette and "do not bite the newbies". Wikipedia articles are improved through the hard work of both regular editors and newcomers. I'm sure you were all new once. Scratchvideo (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Scratchvideo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia has UPE sleeper accounts that are many years old (+4 years), but surface to write one article (usually a BLP or CORP), that is made as a fully formatted page (with photos and logos) on their first edit(s), and who then disappear. We should run a bot to look for them as they are mostly UPEs. Larger UPE firms make these accounts. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we bite the socks? Oaktree b (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can two journalists with different names publish the same exact article then, and a third journalist publish a rewrite of the said article? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman, Hannah, ed. (30 October 2020). "Climb every mountain: The Richmond outdoorsman hiking to the top of all 41 peaks in the Yorkshire Dales National Park". Retrieved 2021-02-26 – via Darlington & Stockton Times.
Nicoll, Carolyn, ed. (December 2020). "Climb Every Mountain". This Is Y. No. 4. pp. 28–31. Retrieved 2022-10-31 – via issuu.
Needham, Jenny, ed. (December 2020). "Climb every mountain". pp. 16–19. Retrieved 2022-10-31 – via Issuu.

The Chapman and Needham articles are identical. They are both signed by Peter Watson's email. The Nicoll article is a paraphrase of the other article plus a Q&A interview with Watson. How is this independently reliable? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I put the ed. there for Chapman and Needham since I question them as original authors. Nicoll is the magazine editor though. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are a number of newspapers/magazines mentioned, some of his profiles only show 1 article published. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly a promotional article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:SIGCOV. While technically this person passes GNG, his claims to fame are less than .... It seems that to be proud of climbing only 4 out of 7 mountains is like getting a B+ on a curved calculus test. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is no real SIGCOV by any quality independent RS (and nothing in the quality climbing media), his refs are from his articles as a travel journalist. A UPE article, and where the UPE editor is now working on getting another journalist client a Wikipedia blp also using extensive amounts of refs linked to their own articles, Draft:Lottie Gross. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As previously discussed, the article is not paid for or promotional and I am not a paid editor. Scratchvideo (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability in climbing (never appears in any climbing magazines), despite his Wikipedia notability being for climbing.31.187.2.233 (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b and AngusWOOF's analysis of the references. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:12, 23 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 Tick (character). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New England Comics[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Mooonswimmer 18:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN company, fails WP:ORG going away, and good grief: for seventeen years, this article has had NO sources other than the company's website? Seriously? Ravenswing 20:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This is the publisher for The Tick. It is also known by NEC Press but I cannot find anything that shows they meet GNG or NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced info into Tick (character) as WP:ATD. // Timothy :: talk 13:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have three different options and two different redirect/merge targets proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is effectively no independently sourced information, and nothing to merge. No evidence of notability currently. Avilich (talk) 19:43, 11 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!} 19:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tick (character). Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG with no WP:SIGCOV. The only possible claim to notability is affiliation to the character, and New England Comics is already mentioned in the lead of the proposed target page. Frank Anchor 03:43, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Platan[edit]

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

Brand that fails WP:NCORP. Czech Wikipedia also has no non-primary sources, and this article has no sources. No additional sources could be found through an internet search. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Czech Republic. Skynxnex (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable brewery with distribution on national level, production of 260.000 hectoliters in 2004 (Czech Radio), see also the book World's Best Beers: One Thousand Craft Brews from Cask to Glass, p. 139, and more sources at G-books. Many other sources in Czech available. I don't like their beer but I can buy it in our little village shop. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:49, 9 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!} 16:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided by Vejvančický passes gng, multiple reliable sources were present as well.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 15:18, 18 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!} 19:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is probably notable. Another possible source is Jákl, Pavel (2010). Encyklopedie pivovarů Čech, Moravy a Slezska, II. dil. Libri. pp. 530–531.. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:59, 20 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) 06:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oog & Blik[edit]

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

Non-notable publishing company. Redirect to De Bezige Bij, who acquired them in 2010 before putting the publisher on hold in 2015. Mooonswimmer 15:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The publishing company was notable, as is his founder, Joost Swarte. Problem is, most references are in newspapers behind paywalls (Parool, Vrij Nederland, NRC). Oog&Blik was during 30 years a leader in the Netherlands in publishing high-quality cartoons. After the takeover, cartoonists left to establish Scratch Books. De Bezige Bij quit the business of cartoons. Here is a good reference: the publishing house was used as a case-study in a dissertation. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into De Bezige Bij, as much of the content is salvable. These shorts about historic publishing houses are a qualified disaster in upkeep and should be viewed as premature WP:SPINOFFs and at times even WP:CONTENTFORKs. Beyond the scope of this AfD, but really both should be contained in WPG Uitgevers, following the Lannoo and DPG Media model. This model can be applied even to a preliminary merge. No question of course of keeping the article on Joost Swarte. gidonb (talk) 11:31, 5 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!} 16:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I can't access the sources mentioned above, but the explanation for the merge seems reasonable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the big merge executor of Benelux publishing houses, I would love to take this task upon me! gidonb (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting once more to see support for a Merge vs. Keeping or Redirecting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 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. BusterD (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atelier Fauni[edit]

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

I did not find enough references to show notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any text of significance could easily be accommodated in Moomins. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we can find more references to support it if necessary, but a historic toy company is decent wiki content. It's culturally relevant as the makers of Moomin dolls. There is already a page for them on Finnish Wikipedia. Angry Candy (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article wasn't connected to the equivalent aritlces in other languages (it is now), but the Finnish article (fi:Fauni-peikot) has plenty of references which seem decent. Someone with better access to the Finnish sources should be able to do a better job, but in the meanwhile I've added references and expanded the article somewhat with content from sv:Allas and sv:Året Runt. /Julle (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Julle. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Julle Elinruby (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Moomins-Theme parks and displays. Reads and researches point the notability for their Moomin dolls. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WomenArtistUpdates: According to the Finnish Wikipedia article, their most popular figure was the Sumppi troll, rather than the Moomin dolls, but my Finnish isn't good enough that I dare try to figure out the sourcing for this. To me, this indicates they might benefit from being treated in a stand-alone article. I think the current English article suffers a bit from the angle of the articles I used to source it. /Julle (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Moomins-Theme parks and displays; there is material in the article worth preserving and this is a good home for it. // Timothy :: talk 15:25, 11 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!} 16:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Moomins-Theme parks and displays, as it stands this company fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added some more info to the article now, pointing to the work done which wasn't directly related to the Moomin trolls. /Julle (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage and attestation to the influence of this organization's products exists. For example:

"Kuuskosken pariskunta loi tyhjästä fantasiamaailman keskelle metsää ja teki oudoilla olennoilla miljoonatilin ulkomailla – Sitten verottaja puuttui tapahtumien kulkuun". Helsingin Sanomat (in Finnish). 2020-06-06. Retrieved 2023-01-23.

(Google Translate): "The Kuuskoski couple created a fantasy world in the middle of the forest from scratch and made a million dollar account abroad with strange creatures - Then the taxman intervened in the course of events

"Finland was gripped by troll mania in the 1960s: Martti and Helena Kuuskoski sewed a fairytale empire whose products were sold in up to 50 countries. All that's left of it are mossy ruins." That's the headline and subheading. The article is a lengthy (1000+ word) history of the couple's business.

"Fauni-peikkojen äiti loi ensimmäiset muumi-figuurit". Helsingin Sanomat (in Finnish). 2014-01-28. Retrieved 2023-01-23.

(Google Translate): "Helena Kuuskoski was known for Atelier Faun, which she founded in the 1950s with her husband at the time, Martti Kuuskoski. Helena Kuuskoski created the first Moomin figures approved by Tove Jansson, which played a significant role in the first Moomin boom. Atelier Faun's moomins are now valuable collectibles. FAUNI TROLLS achieved world fame in the 1960s. The figures spread to 40 countries. In addition, the production included short films, cartoons and textiles. Peikkopuisto was located in Järvenpää, which was the first adventure park built in Finland after Linnanmäki. It quickly became a popular destination for foreign visitors as well. Many people also remember Mallasjuoma's Peikkolimsa, Nuutajärvi's goblin drinking glasses and goblin-themed piggy banks. The drawings of Helena Kuuskoski, who received her education at Ateneum, depicted the sensitivity and beauty of the world of fauna, which had nothing to do with the folk concept of trolls. FAUN'S OPERATIONS IN Järvenpää ended in 1972, after which Helena Kuuskoski and her children Johannes and Minna moved first to Canada and then to North Carolina in the USA. There they have continued to this day to nurture the Faun legacy."

Hagelstam, Wenzel (2005-11-12). "Antiikin lumoissa: Muumeja aidoista materiaaleista". Turun Sanomat. -- Another profile of the company.

Correspondent, Shawna Kenney Star-News. "THE KUUSKOSKI FAMILY: Giving trolls a good name". Wilmington Star-News. Retrieved 2023-01-23. -- coverage of the revival of the company in the U.S.

Jfire (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on work by Julle and Jfire (well worth adding to the article). Ingratis (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Julle and Jfire. Opposing merge to the Moomin page in specific, since these appear to be -- AFAICT -- different trolls. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:34, 23 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) 19:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soe Lwin Lwin (footballer)[edit]

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

WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG require multiple reliable sources showing detailed coverage. Out of the two references in the article, I am unable to access the first one as my PC says that it's a dangerous and possibly malicious website and the second reference is a trivial mention. I have searched in Burmese and English and found plenty on Soe Lwin Lwin but nothing really regarding the apparently non-notable footballer of this name. Best sources were NLD and Eleven, both of which only mentioned Soe Lwin Lwin once in the entire article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 18 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)} 18:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing any sources that have significant coverage in order to suggest notability. If sources are found please ping me. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SNOW. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:22, 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) 19:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian influence in popular culture[edit]

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

Not a notable topic for Wikipedia to mention, any topic on this list should be moved to the main page for the corresponding Egyptian God. Gabe114 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Egypt. Gabe114 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was a fad in the 1920s, to decorate stuff with Egyptian motifs, after they opened King Tut's tomb. This article doesn't talk about that and needs a rewrite. The influence was a thing, but Keep but rewrite? Oaktree b (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Total TNTing is needed IMHO. Per my comment below, this is a notable topic, but there's nothing salvagable in the current entry except the categories and arguably a sentence or two in the lead... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For starters, the article should probably be renamed, as it seems to be only concerned with Ancient Egypt, rather than the present day country's influence on pop culture - maybe something along the lines of "Cultural Influence of Ancient Egypt". There is definitely a notable topic here, but the article really needs to be reworked to be prose rather than having 3/4 of it be a trivia list, and have the copious amounts of non-notable examples removed. The first couple of paragraphs in the "Influence in architecture and the arts" section could be a decent start - if the article were stub-ified down to that as the basis for a rewrite, it may be worth keeping. Rorshacma (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear for the sake of closing the discussion, I am fine with a Delete outcome if other editors are not finding much of worth in the prose bits, as indicated below. The article, as it stands, would need a complete rewrite and have almost the entirety of the current text removed to actually be a proper article, and so if other editors' analysis of the current text is not showing anything worth keeping, then deletion is fine. Rorshacma (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nom is not necessarily correct this is not a notable topic; this may be notable - but the execution is terrible. The prose part is effectively unreferenced (so violates WP:OR), and the list part violates WP:IPC/MOS:POPCULT/WP:NOTTVTROPES/etc. Considering those issues, WP:TNT applies. (If this were to be kept, it would need a total rewrite and rename per Rorshacma on top, given the current scope). PS. As a further indicator the topic is likely notable, consider the book Ancient Egypt in the popular imagination: building a fantasy in film, literature, music and art. I doubt it's the only reliable soruce tackling this. This could be rescued, but again, a total rewrit would be needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Most Popular culture articles and sections of articles were deleted long ago, as they were home to a long list of trivial literary and other cultural references. When I saw the section "Influence in architecture and the arts", I had a hope there might be something worth saving, relating to architecture and the graphic arts, but there is nothing substantial in that section. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron Just a comment, that stil a ton of similar articles (and sections) exist. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 25 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) Reywas92^Talk 18:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colin O'More[edit]

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

Citations for this include draft registration cards, social security index, and a census record – that's a primary source WP:REFBOMB! The short obituary in the Tampa Tribune is the only independent coverage, but this does not get to passing WP:GNG. Reywas92^Talk 18:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's covered in numerous GNewspaper articles, this is the first one I found [11]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage in music press, see https://archive.org/search?sin=TXT&query=%22colin+o%27more%22 Piecesofuk (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the article was tagged, an additional independent source has been added which also verifies notability. Being one of the first individuals to top the American music charts the subject is clearly notable. The two draft registration cards and The Evening World article are included to show that James Harrod and Colin O'More are the same person. Both draft registration cards show the same date and place of birth, with the WWI card under Harrod and the WWII card under O'More. Igbo (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as multiple reliable sources references have been added to the article since nomination so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per criterion G5. Materialscientist (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Myanmar 2016[edit]

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

Moved out of process by relatively new account after earlier being draftified. Notability not demonstrated and of 2 sources, one is to Facebook. 'Naive' search did not reveal SIGCOV. Eagleash (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Beauty pageants, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No secondary sources, and so no evidence of significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 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. Discarding one keep and one delete which have no policy basis, consensus exists to delete. Daniel (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibition of Miniature of Kurdistan Costumes[edit]

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

Borderline notability and few reliable sources el.ziade (talkallam) 18:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Little known museum, but a museum nonetheless. Many photographs are provided. We wouldn't benefit in any way by deleting it. Thanks to User:Neuroforever for creating this interesting new article. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have visited the citadel, this is a tiny exhibition and should not even qualify as a museum, let alone have its own article, or else wikipedia would be replete with insignificant "exhibition/museums".Rouay (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional article about a tourist trap, highly unlikely to be notable. Not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:03, 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 Fatman the Human Flying Saucer. Daniel (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning Comics (1967)[edit]

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

Non-notable publishing company. Redirect to Fatman the Human Flying Saucer. Mooonswimmer 14:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fatman the Human Flying Saucer. Most of these noms of publishers could be merged at ATD. If someone else has a better target to merge to, I don't object.

// Timothy :: talk 15:20, 11 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!} 16:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fatman the Human Flying Saucer. Article fails GNG.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 06:04, 24 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. Daniel (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Les 400 coups[edit]

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

Non-notable publishing company. Mooonswimmer 14:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral at this point but it's worth pointing out that fr:Les 400 coups (maison d'édition) on the French project has multiple sources (not evaluated at this point) worth closer examination. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Le devoir is a mainstream news publication in Quebec and almost certainly meets RS standards. Have not studied up on notability standards for publishing houses but hopefully it helps to know that at least a couple of the sources MLauba mentioned. Elinruby (talk) 19:34, 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!} 16:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the article seems incomplete with only one source at the moment, it's important to note WP:ARTN. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the French sources, Le Devoir is RS, the rest are less so. It's not the best for sourcing, but one of their authors won a prize from the Montreal Library Association for a book [12]. The book has coverage in a few other sources, but it's all brief mentions of the publisher. Weak keep, stronger sourcing would help. Oaktree b (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[13] they're mentioned as having won awards at the Bologna Children's Book Fair, but I can't find much more than a mention about it. Oaktree b (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the announcement of winning the "Bologna Prize for the Best Children's Publishers of the Year" for "North America". A prize is also awarded for the other major regions, e.g. Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania, and Central/South America. It appears to be a prestigious prize in the children's publishing industry. Pushes it towards a Weak Keep for me too. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:18, 20 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) 19:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big Umbrella[edit]

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

Non-notable comic book imprint. Mooonswimmer 14:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and California. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep - from the fact that most (if not all) creators are pretty much well known in the indie comic scene. Mollymiller (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldnt spot anything substantial even in the sources currently lying in the article. Cinadon36 15:38, 11 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!} 16:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searches reveal no reliable sources.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 15:29, 20 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 Walsworth Publishing Company. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Donning Company[edit]

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

Non-notable publishing company Mooonswimmer 14:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Significant coverage about The Donning Company exists in the academic journal The Public Historian (1983 article titled "The Emergence of a Genre: The Urban Pictorial History"). Additional coverage is required to establish notability, but this is not a straightforward !delete. Will update on any further findings. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Walsworth Publishing Company. Ive looked for 45 minutes, and most of the results are short mentions such as photos or history.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Easy way out. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is fine. In searching for additional coverage (beyond the article via JSTOR), I found a LOT of newspaper articles on Newspapers.com that fit the same pattern: NEW LOCAL HISTORY BOOK is now available about OUR TOWN, published by THE DONNING COMPANY which approached OUR LOCAL HISTORIAN to compile a BOOK with BEAUTIFUL PHOTOGRAPHS. "Wow, working with The Donning Company was great!" said LOCAL AUTHOR. The Donning Company did X, Y, and Z, and took care of ABCDEF. So the publisher had a nice formula for publicity about its books and itself, which wasn't nothing but also didn't seem entirely independent. A merge is a good solution. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:33, 25 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) 19:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zoetica Ebb[edit]

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

Lacking WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources; mostly just mentions or coverage from obscure sites. There is an interview at LA Weekly, but that's about it that would qualify. Prod was disputed.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Photography. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At first glance this appears to be a well sourced article, but don't be fooled by the 49 sources. When examining each the vast majority are 404 dead pages, "forbidden - you don't have permission" links, and other error messages. The rest of the sources are simple name-check mentions, primary sources to her gallery, primary source interviews with no editorial content, press releases, blogs, or don't mention her at all. The only possibly usable source, as mentioned in the nom, is a single piece in the L.A. Weekly, but it's still an interview thus not fully independent. This sort of ref-bombed article is usually an attempt to give the impression of notability, which I think may be the case for this article. I was going to prune back all the unusable refs, but think it's better to first do an online BEFORE. I'll !vote once I see if I can find any independent SIGCOV in RS's. Netherzone (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After a BEFORE search online it seems the artist actively posts about herself on social media and blogs. I found a few photo credits, a kickstarter, an Etsy store, gallery listings, but no notable exhibitions, reviews or museum collections, thus failing WP:NARTIST, and as stated above, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, thus failing WP:GNG. Nothing significant on Google News, or Google Books. Altho the article has existed here for a while tt's WP:TOOSOON, as she does not meet notability criteria. It may have existed so long due to the fact that ref-bombing can give the appearance of notability.
Netherzone (talk) 21:55, 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. Clear consensus exists to not retain the article. Normally where there is a split on merge or delete I ATD and go merge, but in this case I'm persuaded by Austronesier's comment as to why we shouldn't merge. Daniel (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gunung Karang civilization[edit]

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

While the first source mentions the traces of old civilizations found at Gunung Karang, I can find no evidence of any source (certainly not reliable ones) discussing an actual Gunung Karang civilization. There also is no indication that the prehistoric Pahoman menhirs have any relation to a "Hindu-style royal heritage site". Fram (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Indonesia. Fram (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: There are several journal sources that say that in the area of Mount Karang there was an ancient Sundanese civilization. Whereas you only read 1 article and easily say there is no civilization. In addition, menhirs and seven wells were found as civilization references. That proves a little that on Mount Karang there was an Ancient Sundanese civilization. Blackman Jr. (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OR. There is no evidence at all that the menhirs and the wells are from the same period. There are no scholarly sources discussing a Gunung Karang civilization, and the fact that some civilization also lived around Gunung Karang doesn't equate a "Gunung Karang civilization", which would mean that it is a separate one, not just a manifestation of a more general one. Feel free to list the sources that contradict my claims though, as there don't seem to be any (and I never stated that I only read 1 article: I read the two sources in the article, and looked for better ones in Google Books and regular Google; I found multiple sources about the menhirs, though mostly of a touristic nature, not scientific ones. I didn't find any sources about this civilization though. Fram (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find no sourcing to say these rocks are indicative of some civilization in the area. Even sourcing about them is scant. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article mentions Mount Karang, but that proved to be a redirect to Gunung Karang, from which I conclude that Gunung means mountain. We have two journal sources on it (in Indonesian). I do not know that language and thus cannot comment, but I wonder whether merging the civilisation to its location would be an appropriate solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let us err on the side of humility, especially in domains (Indonesian archaeology!) where we may have content weaknesses jengod (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really a reason to keep something. Humility is not presenting something as factual in anencyclopedia, when we don't know and don't have the evidence to suppose it actually is correct. To keep an article on some unknown, undiscussed civilization is not humility, it is hubris, Wikipedia knowing better than the experts. Fram (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gunung Karang. Searching through Google scholar and regular search in Indonesia "Peradaban Gunung Karang", there's no solid mention of it in any Indonesian articles that say it is a separate ancient civilization the same way other archeological sites (Tambora civilization/culture, Soppeng civilization/culture, you name it). However, there is significant mentions of the site when talking about the mountain itself, mostly as a tourist attraction. So I say the compromise is to merge it. Nyanardsan (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and salt). It needs reliable sources that talk about a site or a group of sites as a "civilization". There simply is no "Gunung Karang civilization" (or "Peradaban Gunung Karang") in the archeological literature on Indonesia (and there is plenty of good literature, User:Jengod!), and construing one from two poor sources is not just OR, but borders on a hoax. Merge/redirect is not an option, as there is nothing to salvage from the current poorly sourced content, and a made-up page title is an unlikely search topic. Btw, User:Blackman Jr. has a history of creating articles that fall into the space of WP:SCHOLARSHIP without appropriate sources (although some do cover real things and pass WP:GNG—but that's hit and miss). –Austronesier (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been persuaded by the other commenters to change my vote to Merge. jengod (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested, which is a reasonable outcome. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it reasonable to merge unverifiable content (and create a redirect in the process)? There is no evidence at all that a "Gunung Karang civilization" is something any reliable source has even suggested: merging this is basically perpetuating WP:OR / WP:HOAX, as explained by Austronesier above. Fram (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Apparently invented, not a valid topic. Avilich (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G7. (non-admin closure) Duckmather (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest cosmic structures and List of voids[edit]

When I was gonna add a topic for the reason of merging the article, KBC Void into the other 2 articles List of largest cosmic structures and List of voids, I thought so by clicking the word, discuss, which was highlighted in red only to realize that I was creating another page, which is my mistake. So I immediately requested this article to be deleted.

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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:15, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Al-Absi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been draftified once recently so we're here. While it was deleted in 2022, factors have changed since that AfD. However, it does not appear he's notable. Star Mississippi 14:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Star Mississippi 14:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources on page seem to imply he passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Ortizesp. Young player with ongoing career in the fully pro Saudi top flight with over 30 appearances (including for Al-Nassr, one of the most successful teams) who also helped Saudi Arabia Olympic team win their first West Asian U-23 Championship trophy. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of those sources are namedrops. There are a couple of sources that I couldn't translate but they are short and unlikely to provide sigcov of Al-Absi. Dougal18 (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source analysis below Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.kooora.com/?player=125732	Database site, not within WP:SPORTBASIC	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/khalil-ibrahim-alabsi/651749/	Database site, not within WP:SPORTBASIC	✘ No
3	No mention of him	✘ No
https://arriyadiyah.com/676957	Routine coverage of a youth fixture, mentioned only twice	✘ No
https://akhbaar24.argaam.com/article/detail/481299	Mentioned once	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/matches/2020/11/07/saudi-arabia/pro-league/al-nasr-riyadh/al-quadisiya-khobar/3400415/	Database site, not within WP:SPORTBASIC	✘ No
https://elghad.news/41183/	Squad list mention	✘ No
8	Mentioned once	✘ No
https://akhbaar24.argaam.com/article/detail/609666	Two-sentence transfer announcement followed by a Twitter video. No depth.	✘ No
https://www.saff.com.sa/news.php?id=1902	Squad list mention	✘ No
11	Not mentioned	✘ No
https://akhbaar24.argaam.com/article/detail/530043/	Not mentioned	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per source analysis by Spiderone. JoelleJay (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source analysis above. Frank Anchor 20:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Klein (strategist)[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist/writer - does not pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. The majority of the sources in the article are links to his own pieces. Of what is remaining, there is an interview with him from a podcast (not independent coverage), a press release, and two profile pieces (one linked to booking him as a speaker, so not independent; the other a very short profile on the National Press Association). I can't turn up anything more than this myself. WJ94 (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and United States of America. WJ94 (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: The subject is not notable for a Wikipedia article based on the sources provided.JRed176 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable sources from [14] and [15]. Puvasoca (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Puvasoca: These both seem too connected to the subject to count as indepdent. The first is from a website where you can book Klein as a speaker; the second is a routine profile created on a website to which Klein has contributed to. WJ94 (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has pass NACTOR and WP:AUTHOR. Sabomancoo (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabomancoo: Could you explain which parts of WP:NACTOR and WP:AUTHOR you think Klein passes, because I'm not following your argument? WP:NACTOR seems particularly peculiar since, as far as I can see, Klein is not an actor. WJ94 (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom that the sources currently cited aren't enough to satisfy the GNG, and my search found nothing else that would contribute toward notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:38, 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 Cultural anthropology. Feel free to alter where the redirect points, if anyone wishes to do so. Daniel (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transpersonal anthropology[edit]

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

See related transpersonal business studies. I am pretty sure that there were anthropologists who were interested in transpersonal ideas such as transpersonal psychology, but unlike that "subdiscipline", it does not appear that there was ever any coherent movement within anthropology to consistently apply the ideas of the Eslaen movement (transpersonal "studies") to anthropology more generally. All the references in this article are to works that generally look at how the ideas have influenced certain actors in anthropology, but none of them speak to the idea being a subfield or approach that is uniquely "transpersonal anthropology". As such, it is basically Wikipedia promoting a parochial view of the authors of the article -- essentially a promotion of original research. jps (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What little isn't taken from within the transpersonal bubble is synthesis; for example, Al-Issa (1885) doesn't even contain the term "transpersonal". XOR'easter (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cultural anthropology. RPSkokie (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the word "subset" in the lede says it all. Whether to redirect it to Transpersonal or Cultural anthropology is up to the closing admin. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 24 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 Transpersonal. Daniel (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transpersonal business studies[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, this is not a thing. Searching for sources on "transpersonal business studies" only points to WP:FRINGE claims around dubious academic institutions seeking to promote transpersonal psychology in one form or another. jps (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My first search result being an "International Conference on Transpersonal Business Studies" from WASET said a lot. There's no indication that this is a well-defined topic that is covered in reliable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transpersonal. Again, the article says it: "an area of interest within the field of transpersonal studies." Bearian (talk) 20:43, 24 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. Discounting a myriad of contributions which have no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines, a consensus exists to delete. Beccaynr's contribution is the most persuasive. Daniel (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Woodrow[edit]

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

Lack of significant mentions in the independent sourcing provided, google doesn't turn up much. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She's got an entire article in Forbes and Business Insider, as cited. I'm not sure I understand why this is being questioned for notability... Oaktree b (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Agree. Unlimited-Possibilities (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. The Forbes article is not a reliable source; see WP:FORBESCON. The reliability of WP:BUSINESSINSIDER is mixed, and [16] is a low-content article sourced primarily to the subject. The other sources similarly lack in-depth coverage or are unreliable. Jfire (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ (duplicate !vote-as noted below) In reply to the mention about Forbes. The Forbes writer is a senior contributor with dozens of articles written, spanning over several years, not a random contributor. Unlimited-Possibilities (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Contributors", regardless of whether they are "senior" or not, is exactly what the consensus at WP:FORBESCON is referring to. Articles on Forbes that are considered reliable (WP:FORBES) are bylined by "Forbes Staff", such as [17]. Jfire (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Unlimited-Possibilities (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. Beccaynr (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a notable writer. CT55555(talk) 09:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding my comments based on the critique of it below to say that while I recognise METRO as being somewhat tabloid, and I would be reluctant to rely on it for verifiability of controversial content, I think the article it published, combined with the others, does demonstrate notability. CT55555(talk) 05:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She dominates Google search for her name. All of the articles are written about her and her website. 72.199.229.24 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Dominates Google search for her name" is not a policy-based rationale for keeping the article. She may have been successful at SEO, but if reliable independent sources have not written about her in depth, the criteria for notability are not met. Jfire (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC - As noted above, the WP:FORBESCON is considered generally unreliable and should never be used for third-party claims about living persons, so it does not support notability. WP:METRO has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids and the source in the article is based on an interview, so is neither reliable nor independent support for notability. If we consider the Insider source to be focused on culture per WP:RS/P, it still is a collection of images supplied by the subject and her quotes, with what appears to be about five sentences of a biographical overview, some of which is later clarified in the source to be based on what she says. The 2012 NatGeo is a brief mention of her blog, "Check out this list to find out where to grab a bold bite in San Antonio" but seems puffed up in the article as "featured." The Sony website source appears to be an advertisement, and at the very least is a nonindependent source promoting its own product. The brief coverage in Lonely Planet source is based on her blog post and her images, without secondary commentary to help support notability. Online searches find low-quality spam sites and her social media sites, but no significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Due to the promotional nature of the available coverage, WP:PROMO is another basis for deletion. Beccaynr (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak keep: It's a stub at the moment and it could be stated as such with the hope that it is improved upon. JRed176 (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

@Beccaynr I'm not concerned about the length, but about sourcing. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 21:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, I dream of horses, and also think WP:PROMO supports deletion. I also find 'seems notable', 'Google hits' and 'crystal ball' justifications insufficient to support this article due to the sources available at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Beccaynr.-KH-1 (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom and Beccaynr. Wikipedia is not a resume or venue for pseudo biographies. Travel bloggers make money from advertising. The more exposure they get the more money they make, and the more perks they receive. It is one thing to have a source that requires payment, but something else when a person has to provide an email (National Geographic) and accept receiving advertisements, to read a source. The subject is shy of minimum notability. While some articles can pass with borderline notability a BLP is held to a higher degree concerning sources. Also, The double !vote is from a SPA, with five edits, and all of them are on this subject. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There's rough consensus here that, for better or worse, the sourcing is sufficient to establish notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Speranza[edit]

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

I came across this article on the Discord when the creator asked for help nominating it for GA. I took a look, but quickly realized that not only is it not ready for GA, my read of the sourcing suggests that the subject does not meet the GNG. I hate to take an article by someone brand new to AfD, so I asked the people at to have a look in case I was being overly strict with my reading of the sources. It's been a few days and no one has disagreed with my read, so here we are. From Hill To Shore and Gaarmyvet commented at the MilHist post and may wish to comment here.

Source analysis follows:

Praesidus is a watch company and they named a watch for him; this is PR.
WP:ANCESTRY
We Are The Mighty is a digital media company that does marketing and branding. They are not a reliable source.
An unbylined short piece published by the US Embassy in Belgium. I could maybe squint my way to calling this reliable, but I wouldn't call it significant coverage.
101st Airbone looks like a fansite, but isn't significant coverage anyway
DVIDS appears to be a press agency of sorts for military members so I'm not sure it's independent. See their About
The Lincoln Library PDF is an oral history interview, so it's a primary source not independent for the purpose of notability.
NAU Review is basically local news coverage by Northern Arizona University, this is decently long but I'm not sure I would count it as reliable for the purpose of notability
An obituary for his wife not SIGCOV of him
Coffee or Die is a coffee company, not a reliable source of historical information
The watch thing again, x2
Unclear what kind of project Purple Foxes United is - looks like a convention? but maybe there's comic books also? - but it isn't an RS

In my own searches, I found

this Stars and Stripes article is probably the strongest source about him, but on its own is insufficient to support a claim to notability
this, which is a short local fluff piece that I would argue doesn't contribute much to notability

Overall, I just don't see that GNG is met. I could possibly support a merge to Siege of Bastogne since he's largely known for a single amusing incident that occurred during that, but I'm not sure if it would be considered WP:UNDUE importance. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Belgium, and New York. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. Unfortunately, this is a GNG failure. I also looked for significant coverage in newspapers and came up empty. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my !vote to weak keep in light of particularly the French-language newspaper sourcing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. I also was unable to find any substantial source material to strengthen the case here. However, editors may wish to add referenced statements to the related Wikidata page at Vincent Speranza (Q115948441). If this Wikipedia page is deleted, gathering sourced material on Wikidata will make it easier to recreate an article here if notability is established in the future. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have lost internet access and can only connect on a metered connection. I don't have time or bandwidth to review the newly added source material, so I am withdrawing my !vote. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has received coverage in English, French and Dutch media, often being a core subject of the relevant article (so not insubtantial coverage). This passes WP:BASIC as multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. While his core notability stems from one incident in 1944, this is not a case of someone receiving coverage for one incident and then being forgotten. He also appears to be known for frequent participation in veteran-related events in his retirement. Yes, there are thousands/millions of old veterans in the world, but if secondary sources feel that specific individuals are worthy of significant coverage, then we should reflect those secondary sources. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Decorated soldiers, but most of these medals they gave out by the thousands in WW2, he's not much different than any other person that served at that time. Campaign medals are basically given for having served in a particular part of the globe during wartime, nothing special about them; I hate to call them participation trophies, but same sort of idea, everyone who plays gets one. Oaktree b (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DVIDS is a distribution platform for the US military to publish news photos and videos; unsure if it's a private concern or not. Regardless, it's a valuable source for anyone looking for public domain photos to add to wikipeda, 99% of the photos are created by US military members for official purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but my question for the purpose of this AfD is, is it editorially independent, or do they just publish whatever's submitted to them? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's run by or for the military, I don't think it's an RS, basically self-published work. First-party sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC as shown by analysis of sources above. Original creator is V.B.Speranza who is presumably related to the subject. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to the creator, I did ask about that on Discord in a private DM, and they advised they were not a relative but felt inspired by him, hence the account name. Whether that feels believable I leave up to you, although based on their other drafts for similar people I'm actually inclined to believe them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that its the only live page they've created that seems implausible. They have also created Draft:Tom Rice (private) who seems to be comrade in arms of Vincent Speranza, presumably to prop up the Vincent Speranza page. Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They also made Draft:Liu Chi-Sheng and their first effort was a draft on some random civil parish in Portugal. Two other things that go in their favor, to me: one, the article doesn't have any unexplained/unsourced personal details, which I find to be typical when I'm dealing with a relative (I'm talking stuff like exact DOBs that don't appear in any sources, personal photos, etc), and two, they edit other things, while relatives tend to be fairly laser focused on their family member. I'm willing to extend sufficient good faith to believe that they're trying to write about a neat thing they came across, although obviously it doesn't change my opinion on the subject's notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was an average soldier who helped win a war. That not significant--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The individual has been significantly covered in multiple independent reliable sources and passes WP:GNG/WP:NBASIC. These sources include:
1. Stars and Stripes
2. SI Live 1, 2
3. Ouest France
4. La Manche Libre
5. La Presse de La Manche
6. The United States Army itself
  While the article is not in great shape (and lacks many of these listed sources), WP:DEL-CONTENT is explicit that If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page and WP:NEXIST notes that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And, frankly, the fact that this individual is getting significant coverage in multiple languages across multiple continents indicates to me that there is no doubt that this person meets the relevant notability criteria. Some people above also appear to be attempting to implicitly argue this should be deleted for failing the historical SOLDIER essay (i.e. he was an average soldier), but per WP:NSOLDIER the essay is deprecated and its use in deletion discussions is actively discouraged by the project. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a friendly note, searching newspaper archives is somewhat complicated; there appears to be a man with the same name who lived in the NYC metro and got a Purple Heart for service in Korea. I'm not able to tell if they're the same person, but the sources noted in my commentabove all appear to be about the article subject. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Red-tailed hawk's excellent search work. I incorporated some of these in the article and cleaned out unsuitable references. While I still do have some issues about the possible WP:COI, Speranza seems to meet WP:BASIC. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may as well try and ping people who voted before for a discussion about the new sources in the article and this discussion: Premeditated Chaos, Sammi Brie, Oaktree b, Mztourist, From Hill To Shore, Gaarmyvet. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No change to my !vote, I have never felt that outliving your contemporaries is notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really a WP:DEL-REASON that you're basing that on, though. I can't just delete a page because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion reason remains WP:BASIC, I don't regard recent media coverage of an old soldier as satisfying BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the text of WP:BASIC that would plausibly support that view. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Thanks for the excellent source location, I think he was featured in the newspapers as he was one of the few soldiers still alive that was present during the war, but coverage is coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read what you're writing, but, imho, a person has to be notable for something. Low level awards and being in a significant place just don't get me there.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the part of WP:DEL-REASON or WP:N, that supports the claim that being significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple is not a reason why someone is notable? I'm not able to find it. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the decorations are notable, and simply "being there" isn't enough. I have never been persuaded by either the "last person standing" or obituary arguments as being signs of notability. Intothatdarkness 19:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two things:
1. If you read through the sources, the coverage is not simply about him being old. The piece in Stars and Stripes, from 2013, is explicitly about his actions in World War II, including the incident with the beer. The first piece from SI Live also dedicates over one thousand words to his service in World War II and his life more broadly. That's hardly a "last person standing" sort of coverage.
2. With respect to " obituary arguments", would you please point to the piece anyone is arguing to establish SIGCOV that is an obituary? I'm not able to find it, so I'd appreciate some help.
— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The obituary is a common claim here by some that it's an automatic indication of notability (it hasn't surfaced in this particular discussion yet, but has in others...you can go find them if you like). Given that obituaries are often paid content, I don't support that view. Having a beer named after you isn't a big deal in the age of micro-breweries. Sorry...still not convinced he's notable. Intothat darkness 23:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a point of clarity (not trying to change your !vote) this a BLP, so there isn't an obituary argument to be made at this time. However, as with the varying quality of sources, so too are there varying qualities of obituaries. If a reliable source independent of the subject wrote an obituary after their death, that would just be one more reliable source to consider. An obituary written by a family member and placed in the advertisement section of a local newspaper (outside of editorial scrutiny) would be much less reliable. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, at least, many obituaries are generated by family members or perhaps the funeral home. They show up in the obituary section of papers, but they certainly aren't independent in the sense you mean. Those same obituaries could then be 'recycled' in other papers, obscuring their origins. I've always been deeply suspicious of the "obituary exception" to sourcing (to be clear, that's my own name for the concept, and I agree it doesn't apply here at this time).

I also question the relevance of the newspaper stories. If he's the only one still alive (or willing to talk to them), that doesn't equate to notability. Neither does participating in veteran-related events. Had he organized them or something similar I might be persuaded, but this just doesn't reach that bar. Intothat darkness 16:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Red-tailed hawk stop WP:BLUDGEONing the process. Mztourist (talk)

To be honest, I've been reading some of the thoughts above; I'm not terribly fussed if it gets deleted. It's the weakest of keeps. I mean they interview the guy as he's one of the few soldiers left from that era to be able to tell his own story. He wasn't some super commando type that captured 40 Germans by himself, just a guy doing his duty for his country. I'm not sure that meets notability or not. I think this might be more of a human interest story than anything else. IF it does get deleted, I'd contact the family member that created it, they'll more than likely want to keep a copy in some form. It's still an impressive piece of sleuthing to be able to put this together. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN bio of some kind of relations to the author. "Been there" and "outlived comrades" are not reasons to keep. Fails WP:BASIC. UtherSRG (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the two delete votes above are using WP:BASIC correctly, which says: "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.". Whether we believe he is or he isn't notable, or whether "recent media coverage of an old soldier" (and there is significant coverage of the subject from 2013, 2017 and 2022) should be regarded is irrelevant to the actual guideline that's being improperly cited here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass GNG per Red-tailed hawk. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This took some contimplation. The subject was a soldier at the Siege of Bastogne of around 18,000, likely among those considered "The Battered Bastards of Bastogne". He reportedly received the Purple Heart but there is no mention of the particulars. The story of the "beer in a helmet" has not been denied but all these years later there is still “Airborne Beer” served in the taverns. The notability of a person would be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. I find the origin of the "beer in a helmet" to be particularly interesting and unusual enough to warrant mention in an article. Since the subject appears (by multiple sources) to be the origin of the story, to me, he is "worthy of notice". -- Otr500 (talk) 08:35, 22 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. Consensus is that SIGCOV is not met. Daniel (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Malik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Refs are passing mentions and profiles. No secondary coverage. scope_creep^Talk 23:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated this for deletion in 2017. The subject has done nothing of any significance since then, and this new article is a clear fail of WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think she passes WP:COMPOSER as the lyricist of the very notable song Chura Ke Dil Mera. The song has 36 million views just on this link alone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af5Dw0hciIk&ab_channel=IshtarMusic and makes the news a lot, examples follow:

Comment None of these reference above mention the subject, except for the youtube ref in the most cursory style that is neither in-depth nor independent. The first one is 2-minute short, and 2nd one is clickbait article. The Youtube ref is a passing mention. These are NON references. scope_creep^Talk 02:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People in the subcontinent don't know much about the lyricists rather than the playback singers behind the notable songs used in popular films and the same is the case for her. Although there is not enough in-depth mention of her in reliable sources, she wrote many popular songs in notable films, as an Artist and Lyricist she meets WP:ARTIST and WP:COMPOSER respectively. Some examples of her work: 1, 2, 3 and the IMDb list. The page needs expansion rather than deletion. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These links are passing mentions, profiles or listicle articles and are not signifcant, and the first one is not reliable. IMDB is non-rs. They are junk references. scope_creep^Talk 06:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has penned many popular songs and have been nominated for Filmfare Award, the most respectable award of India and earned Screen Award for Best Lyricist. Abbasulu (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She seems to have done a lot but no evidence has been offered of being verifiable per WP:V. We will check the references. scope_creep^Talk 14:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the references:

Ref 1 [18] on Rani Malik’s lyrics for the 1994 hit “Main Khiladi Tu Anari” That is a passing mention.
Ref 2 [19] the great flow that Rani Malik had developed for the original. That is the extent. That is a passing mention.
Ref 3 [20] That is a profile clickbait site and is not significant. Non-rs.
Ref 4 [21] Not mentioned on the page. Non-RS.
Ref 5 [22] lyricist Rani Malik. Not significant.
Ref 6 IMDB. NON-RS.
Ref 7 [23] Clickbait site. It does state she has written 296 songs, which is a lot. But no evidence for it. Non-RS. Similar to IMDB.

Looking at the refs above.

Ref 1 [24] rafted by the technical genius of music director Anu Malik. Passing mention. Primary
Ref 2 [25] No mention of Rani Malik. Non-RS.
Ref 3 [26] Rani Malik penned the song Passing mention.
Ref 4 [27] No mention.
Ref 5 [28] Another clickbait similar to IMDB listing her songs. At least three pages worth. Primary.

Doing a WP:BEFORE, which was done before. There is lots and lots of passing mentions as evidenced by the analysis, but not even an interview using the Google CSE search. Nothing on a straighforward Google search - Wikipedia, not even an interview. On the news search, its the same kind of passing mentions coverage.

Currently Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. There is insufficient coverage to pass a WP:BLP. What is there is incidental. scope_creep^Talk 12:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems clear that WP:BIO is not met... but our standards for musicians are much lower. Plainly, the subject meets criteria (1) of WP:COMPOSER: they have "credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." WP:COMPOSER notes that "Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may not be possible." I don't see any obvious redirects, as the subject is known as a lyricist for multiple works. Suriname0 (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing any evidence that India Today is an unreliable source, not listed at perennial sources Atlantic306 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ROTM songwriter. Text filled with peacockery. Lacks WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Current arguments to retain this appear to be based upon WP:ILIKEIT, rather than being policy based 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Timtrent, I'm wondering if you could specifically assess whether the subject meets WP:COMPOSER, which seems like it applies here. Suriname0 (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not generally enter into a dialogue during AfDs. One cannot pass WP:NCOMPOSER without having WP:SIGCOV. WP:V is a cornerstone. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject isn't passing WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER. Not verified as per WP:V ||||||| Sahilrazvii999 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see enough in-depth sourcing to show they meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:53, 20 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) 19:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Hanti[edit]

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

Certainly accomplished, but I cannot find enough in-depth sourcing to show that they pass WP:GNG. Was draftified in the hopes of improvement, but returned to mainspace without any improvements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont find any independent sources. There are blog posts and advertising, facebook, etc., but nothing else. Lamona (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this BLP for want of significant coverage. Billboard is normally reliable, but the article doesn't name him in the title. Every other source is unreliable. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blake and Murphy[edit]

This article has been outdated for years, since the wrestling tag team, Blake and Murphy got disbanded and the 2 wrestlers, Buddy Murphy and Wesley Blake, parted ways upon their release from WWE. I also requested some of the information from this page to be moved into the articles of Alexa Bliss and the 2 aforementioned wrestlers.

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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Seems like people notable for collaborative work. Them no longer teaming is not a deletion rationale. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator has made no argument for deletion. If it's outdated then update it. Dougal18 (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid deletion reason provided. Just because the team is no longer together does not mean it should be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 18:45, 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 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rico Disciullo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Subject's highest ranking by Fight Matrix is 274th in the world bantamweight rankings, which is short of the top 10 requirement. Subject has also never made the top 10 of a Sherdog ranking. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 10:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and United States of America. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 10:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never close to meeting WP:NMMA and I don't see significant independent coverage that would support a claim to meeting WP:GNG. Databases and fight results are insufficient to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manizeh Zainli[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG , the references are unreliable and primary, selection and removal stories of PFF secretary would not make her notable. 17 refs, describing same story and interview, no other noteworthy importance in reliable sources . M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Sports, and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What could contribute to her notability is "She is also the first female official of any football federation in South Asian countries". Robby.is.on (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG with sources on page.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable article. 111.119.188.13 (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Besides the many sources already in the article, I found 18 and 19 among many many more sources. There are also definitely many sources in Urdu (the Pakistan national official language). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz, The references you mentioned were already there except for YouTube (unreliable). A topic does not need many many more sources to make it noteworthy, rather than significant coverage in reliable and secondary references. First female official of any football federation doesn't make her notable if we look into the WP:BIO1E. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube one was broadcast/published by PTV Sports which looks like a reliable source. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - muddled nomination - doesn't really address in specific terms what's supposed to be wrong with the copious sourcing in the article. No evidence of WP:BEFORE. The PROD which was even more ridiculous said "selection of PFF secretary would not make her notable" (?) Well maybe she wouldn't be notable if she hadn't attained her office, but so what? We'll never know. Maybe David Beckham wouldn't be notable if he'd been no good at football, or New York city if they'd built it somewhere else! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bring back Daz Sampson, Copious sourcing isn't the justification of notability. Selection of PFF secretary (PFF secretary isn't public office too), give me any refs other than this statement (as refs only emphasizing and covering this news only) which are giving her significant coverage in reliable sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources which show notability. Giant Snowman 21:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has in-depth coverage from multiple RS such as Dawn and The News International. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 24 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) 19:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Gluckstadt, Mississippi[edit]

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

A "list" of one for a very minor function (mayor of a small town of 3,000 people). Fram (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Mississippi. Fram (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mississippi classifies Gluckstadt as a "city," the same classification as Jackson the most populous municipality in the state. To be classified as a city, the population need only be over 2,000. For a state that is only 4% urban, Gluckstadt has a very substantial population. It is just shy of being in the top fourth of municipalities in Mississippi in terms of population. Roughly 74% of the 299 municipalities in Mississippi have smaller populations than Gluckstadt including half of the county seats. Gluckstadt is the 28th largest municipality that is not a county seat. Regarding the number of mayors to make a "list," the fact that there is currently only is a moot point. Obviously, in time there will be others. The list is no different than a list in "stub" class where only one item has been provided. Starting the list now makes sense for a number of reasons: !) It makes the list of mayors easier to complete and update, 2) Having researched other cities, it can be extremely time consuming to keep track of elected officials especially when people resign, die in office, or are recalled, 3) One of the functions of WP is to have information readily available for research (deleting that information does a disservice to users), 4) WP also provides information that has been neglected or underreported in other sources. In short, there has been no case made why any WP user would benefit from the list being deleted, but as stated above, there are numerous reasons why it should stay. Deleting it now, will only make the job of re-creating the list once the population increases and more mayors have served the municipality more difficult later. Igbo (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly anything you say has any bearing on this AfD. Whether Gluckstadt is a city or not? Not important. That many municipalities are even smaller? Yes, and we don't have articles or lists for the mayors of those either. You refer to "The list is no different than a list in "stub" class where only one item has been provided", but we shouldn't normally have any lists with only one entry. Whether the list would need recreating or not in X years time (no reason why he can't stay mayor for 10 years or so) is not really relevant either (yes, deletion now if it would be recreated in a weeks time would be a point to consider, but here?), and it is very doubtful whether having more mayors would make this a notable list topic anyway, considering the limited population of the municipality. A list of non notable persons holding a non-notable position is not a good list topic: but when there is only one entry, it's even worse. Fram (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not a list. --MuZemike 12:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the above is relevant – we simply don't do stand-alone articles for political leaders of communities as small as this one. It duplicates Gluckstadt,_Mississippi#Government and serves no further purpose. Reywas92^Talk 17:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article should be deleted because the content can be contained within the parent article of Gluckstadt (see WP:PAGEDECIDE). The size of a municipality should not be the defining factor whether a stand-alone list is appropriate. Guidelines for notability of a list is described in WP:NLIST, and further described in WP:LISTCRITERIA. --Enos733 (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of 1 non notable person? Definitely fails WP:NLIST. LibStar (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all above! gidonb (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:OUTCOME. A list of one is always deleted. A article implicating BLP with a single source is always deleted. Any article with a single source is suspect to be lacking in significant coverage. I don't see how this would break the very clear consensus. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 24 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. BusterD (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation VR Aim Controller games[edit]

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

WP:NOTCATALOG, a list of games that support an optional accessory for PlayStation VR. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed all the links to unrelated articles. Ten of the entries link to articles about a video game. Some of these games were ported to different systems. Is being compatible with a certain controller a notable aspect of a game? The existing lists of games can have a column added listing which controllers they use if this matters. I don't see a reason for a separate article for it. Dream Focus 11:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an optional peripheral, not a essential required device. Look it up, it's essentially two PlayStation Move controllers in one device resembling a futuristic rifle. It's not obligatory, as games can be played with it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This list of all PS VR games is extremely huge, very out of date, and not able to be organized/viewed in a way that clearly and explicitly shows which games can be used with the Aim device, plus there are some games that you can use with the Aim controller that are not VR games, and therefore wouldn't be on that list. The tracking of the use and history of video game peripherals is a very important part of video game history to many people, and having a concise and concentrated list of these is a huge help for many people who are doing research on certain genres and eras of video games, which is generally what Wikipedia is meant for, isn't it? MachineAres (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced WP:GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Compatibility with the Aim Constroller is already noted in List of PlayStation VR games. There's no need for a standalone list for an optional peripheral when the existing article covers it already. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This list of all PS VR games is extremely huge, very out of date, and not able to be organized/viewed in a way that clearly and explicitly shows which games can be used with the Aim device, plus there are some games that you can use with the Aim controller that are not VR games, and therefore wouldn't be on that list. The tracking of the use and history of video game peripherals is a very important part of video game history to many people, and having a concise and concentrated list of these is a huge help for many people who are doing research on certain genres and eras of video games, which is generally what Wikipedia is meant for, isn't it? MachineAres (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:GAMECRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCATALOG and this is already noted in the List of PlayStation VR games. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This list of all PS VR games is extremely huge, very out of date, and not able to be organized/viewed in a way that clearly and explicitly shows which games can be used with the Aim device, plus there are some games that you can use with the Aim controller that are not VR games, and therefore wouldn't be on that list. The tracking of the use and history of video game peripherals is a very important part of video game history to many people, and having a concise and concentrated list of these is a huge help for many people who are doing research on certain genres and eras of video games, which is generally what Wikipedia is meant for, isn't it? MachineAres (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of PlayStation VR games--everything of value can be noted in that list (and already is). DecafPotato (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This list of all PS VR games is extremely huge, very out of date, and not able to be organized/viewed in a way that clearly and explicitly shows which games can be used with the Aim device, plus there are some games that you can use with the Aim controller that are not VR games, and therefore wouldn't be on that list. The tracking of the use and history of video game peripherals is a very important part of video game history to many people, and having a concise and concentrated list of these is a huge help for many people who are doing research on certain genres and eras of video games, which is generally what Wikipedia is meant for, isn't it? MachineAres (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MachineAres, you really don't have to copy-paste your reply to every !vote. It's unnecessary and doesn't help your argument. To address your points: why don't you try to improve the main article? Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it's not specifically for people who want to research "certain genres and eras of video games". Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE or a WP:CATALOG for every product released. As this is a list, see WP:LISTN: are there multiple reliable and independent sources that discuss games specifications with the accessory? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 23:12, 23 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!} 05:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan School Salalah[edit]

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Pakistan, and Oman. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NSCHOOL. RPSkokie (talk) 17:09, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Committal procedure[edit]

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

Is this any different from a Preliminary hearing? If they are describing the same concept, then committal procedure should be deleted and redirected to preliminary hearing. On the other hand, if they are different concepts, then the articles should probably be merged and the differences elaborated upon. I am not a lawyer or otherwise an expert in comparative criminal law (though I find it fascinating); which is why I am starting a discussion rather than just going ahead and merging or redirecting. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. They are different topics, sometimes just in name, other times in procedure, depending on the legal jurisdiction. AFD is the wrong place to be. The matter of possible merger of the two topics should be held on the talk pages. Deletion will be inappropriate but there might be a redirect if a merge took place. Thincat (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. Committal procedure is not the same thing as a preliminary hearing. In Australia, a defendant could be committed for trial without a preliminary hearing if he said he did not want one: [29] [30]. For example, see in particular sections 101B and 101C(b)(iii) of the Justices Act, 1902 (aka the Justices Act, 1902-1976) as inserted by section 6 of the Justices Act Amendment Act 1976 of Western Australia: [31]. The point is that a preliminary hearing is only part of the committal proceedings or process, and it is not even necessarily a mandatory part of the proceedings or process. Further, in the United Kingdom, it was possible for a person to be committed for sentencing in the Crown Court after he has been convicted in the magistrates court: [32]. The point is that "committal" refers to being sent from one court to another. Further, a person can be committed to prison for contempt of court. And AfD is not WP:PROPMERGE. James500 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems to mostly cover the Australian system. Which doesn't make it bad. I think it should be expanded to include, for example, the United States. also that more emphasis should be put on the point that the shared traits are only in common law systems and others are quite different. Elinruby (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This could be procedural close here because the nominator doesn't offer a strong rationale for why this article merits deletion and has more questions than proposals.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage by reliable independent sources to meet GNG. Serratra (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC) — Serratra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. James500 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since Serratra has asked me to prove the obvious: This topic has received significant coverage in many books and periodical articles. There are entire books on this topic. See, for example, Clifford E M Chatterton and Philip K Brown, "Committals for Trial to the Crown Court: The Law and Practice", Fourmat Publishing, London, 1988. There is probably a chapter on this topic in every book on criminal procedure, and in many books on criminal law, for many countries in the commonwealth, from at least the 1930s onwards. There are many periodical articles that are entirely about this topic. See, for example: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]; "From Committal Proceedings to Transfer for Trial": [46]; "Publicity for Committal Proceedings": [47] [48]; "Effect of Lapse of Time on Committal Proceedings": [49]; "Committal Proceedings - Adversarial or Inquisitorial?": [50]; "Committal for Trial by Quarter Sessions": [51]. And see also the chapter in the article: [52]. And the book and periodical articles listed above are only a fraction of the massive, massive, massive coverage that this topic has received. James500 (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per James500 and his sources.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tentatively per WP:HEY, if the sources found are added to the article. There are plenty of legal articles where the procedure is unique to a single jurisdiction; see Auslegeschrift and Allocation questionnaire. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mason (Company)[edit]

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

Borderline G11 candidate, citations appear to be largely self-published (i.e. from Forbes contributors) or overly reliant on PR materials. I'm unsure of the reliability of any of the websites that have apparently given the company awards, but my strong suspicion is that it fails WP:GNG regardless. always forever (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. always forever (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 11 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!} 06:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The firm was previously known as Kubric so I am adding a further Find Sources below. AllyD (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: An article on a start-up firm. Some of the content relates to the individuals who established this firm, from whose prior or other roles notability is not inherited. Other content relates to funding announcements, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, and various industry awards which are non-notable (and one of which is from a partner company). As the nominator said, some content is rather promotional, e.g. "a self-serve no-code platform that powers Marketers, Product Managers, and Founders to upgrade their D2C storefronts from storytelling to selling to scaling". That aside, though, such coverage of the company as is available is interview-based; I don't see attained notability as being demonstrable at this point. AllyD (talk) 16:22, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Westlink M7 Cities Marathon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find independent coverage (like in mainstream press) of this event. There's mostly links from running related websites. LibStar (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. References are inadequate. A google search came back with this article however I feel it is more about a man named 'Bob Fickel' than it is about the race. Further the article has been here for 16 years and hasn't developed. - GA Melbourne (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage. BruceThomson (talk) 05:47, 25 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) 06:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Led Sobrepeña III[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. Has had no significant roles. I found zero hits on Google News. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's a SAS.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.pep.ph/guide/tv/2255/the-singing-bee-season-1-produced-three-millionaires			Just a mere mention; no significant role in the show	✘ No
https://ph.linkedin.com/pub/dennis-garcia-arce/a3/576/831	?	LinkedIn	?	✘ No
https://web.facebook.com/SARISARIChannelPh/videos/823302081147021/	?	Facebook		✘ No
https://www.facebook.com/MinutePHL/videos/712454192113852/	?	Facebook (again)		✘ No
https://twitter.com/CamillePrats/status/	?	Twitter	? "Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else."	✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1933831/	?	IMDb		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20101011151846/http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/entertainment/entertainment/view/20101007-296521/A-funny-superhero			Mere mention (again)	✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1444692/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast	?	IMDb (again)		✘ No
https://www.pep.ph/guide/indie/5070/baklas-human-organs-for-sale-inspired-by-true-incidents-in-tondo		~	? ^{[dead link]}	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

—hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source analysis is wonderful. There isn't much of anything else I find, fails GNG and ACTOR. Nothing significant found for RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero hits for me as well. Likely COI/AUTOBIO as well as the article creator has spent the overwhelming majority of their 8 years on Wikipedia making edits to this article only. This article is based purely on WP:OR and self-published sources so the whole thing needs to go. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Good ref assessment --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE. SBKSPP (talk) 01:45, 21 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) 06:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CoolApk[edit]

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

Non-notable website with WP:BOMBARDMENT of sources that are mostly from the website itself. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a copy of 2 times deleted page Xiaolvshu, less than a day ago. Page should have been A7. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Software, Websites, and China. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. There are sources like this, but it very specifically says on the bottom that there's no editorial oversight and that it's just hosting user-submitted content. This is user-submitted content on a Slashdot clone, this is a press release, and this has a passing trivial mention (if that, I'm not 100% sure it's even talking about this article's subject in that passing mention). There's fifteen sources in the article but none with significant coverage in a reliable third-party source. However I don't speak Chinese so I can only search so much with the 酷安 that's given in the article, but from what I can find there's nothing that would demonstrate notability. - Aoidh (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%85%B7%E5%AE%89

CoolApk has zhwiki for long time. DaHiicu (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but the sources on zh:酷安 are the same as the sources at CoolApk so there's nothing there that would change the notability issue. (Interestingly, the ja:酷安 version has been tagged as a copyvio/attribution issue and looks to be headed towards deletion as well.) - Aoidh (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion: Ku'an Forum plays an important role in the minds of digital enthusiasts in China.

https://www.zhihu.com/question/337867255

https://www.zhihu.com/question/482655728

https://www.zhihu.com/question/20658510

about jawiki: editor is lazy(copy them directly) DaHiicu (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forum posts do not show notability. The issue here is the lack of notability; that the article's subject has a forum associated with it does not address that. - Aoidh (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/50560649

CoolApk web version has only a little selected content. It is actually an application.

https://www.coolapk.com/editorChoice

coolapk team 's official video account http://space.bilibili.com/386137684 DaHiicu (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.coolapk.com/ DaHiicu (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see any sources that pass WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : It is clear that the editors have added many sources of citation unrelated to the content of the entry in order to preserve it. For example, this cites a web page as a source, but this is just a software download page and has nothing to do with the content of this paragraph, even though the editors have named the citation "Ku'an History". ManunChan (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: It appears that this is a shared link to a post in the software, but apparently it is not accessible via the website and the archived link does not allow access to the original article at all. The original post has also been removed. I don't think this is a valid source. In short, this entry is full of invalid sources like this one. ManunChan (talk) 10:57, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Wardrope[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:BIO. No significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Basketball, and Australia. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. No wikipedia appropriate sources could be located. - GA Melbourne (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find any RSs via Newsbank or WikiLibrary (noting that it appears Wardrope played at least one game of basketball for Scotland against Australia in 2006). Cabrils (talk) 23:14, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caged No More[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as only BLOG style reviews found in a BEFORE.

PROD removed with "decline PROD, it got some notice. Add Today interview", but an interview with the actors does not make it notable.

Tagged for notability since January 2022 DonaldD23 talk to me 02:56, 4 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 02:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, it has the Deadline source, and this [53] but it's paywalled. I think there are just enough sources talking about it. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 11 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!} 03:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Brooks, Brian (2016-01-21). "'God's Not Dead' Producers Unleash 'Caged No More'". Deadline Hollywood. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.
  The article notes: "Inspired by real events, Caged No More is a thriller spotlighting what has been described as the “world’s fastest-growing crime.” The feature follows Aggie Prejean, a woman on a desperate search to find her two granddaughters, Skye and Elle, who have been kidnapped by their sinister father. ... The filmmakers raised financing for the project as well as resources for P&A with support from Icon Media Goup. The project shot in Baton Rouge, LA, in October and November 2014 before taking production to Athens in December and eventually New York City in February 2015. ... The film will open in 117 theaters this weekend, with showings concentrated where churches and other groups will mobilize their members to spread the word. Word Entertainment will handle foreign distribution and the title’s VOD and DVD release."
2. Morris, George (2016-03-18). "Louisiana filmmakers' faith fuels movie projects". The Advocate. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.
  The article notes: "“Caged No More,” which shines a spotlight on human sexual trafficking, opened Jan. 22 in selected theaters, including Cinemark Perkins Rowe. ... Though it features characters with strong Christian beliefs, “Caged No More” has a less overt religious theme, telling the story of a young girl who is sold to traffickers to pay off drug debts. It is based on Molly Venzke’s novel, “Caged,” and Arnold and Venzke worked for 18 months to convert it into a screenplay. Along with Loreta Devine (“Grey’s Anatomy”) and Alan Powell (“The Song”), Sorbo also stars in “Caged No More,” which was filmed primarily in Baton Rouge and Athens, Greece. It includes appearances by Kathie Lee Gifford, Gretchen Carlson and former Gov. Bobby Jindal."
3. Kuhl, Patrick (2016-01-21). "Mom puts talents to work against sex trafficking". Belleville News-Democrat. Archived from the original on 2016-06-09. Retrieved 2023-01-22.
  The article notes: "“Caged No More” opens Friday in theaters across the country. The movie, starring Kevin Sorbo, Loretta Devine and Cynthia Gibb, is the story of Aggie Prejean, a grandmother on a desperate search to find her two granddaughters, Skye and Elle, who have been kidnapped by their sinister father. He has taken them overseas to be sold into slavery to settle his drug debt. Aggie enlists the help of the girls’ uncle, a well-respected local philanthropist, and his son Wil, who is former Special Forces. They stop at nothing to see the girls safely returned home. ... “Caged No More” is the first movie in a trilogy. Molly is writing the next two books and screenplays. “The goal is to film the second and third parts in 2016, then release the films back-to-back in 2017 and 2018.”"
4. Fontana, Christine (2016-08-31). "Breaking Free". New Orleans Living Magazine. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.
  The article notes: "Filmed in Baton Rouge; New York City?/New Orleans?; and Athens, Greece, and released nationwide in theaters in January 2016, Caged No More is a drama starring Kevin Sorbo, Emmy-Award winner Loretta Devine, Alan Powell and Cassidy Gifford. Kathie Lee Gifford, Governor Bobby Jindal and Natalie Grant make cameos in the film, which centers on a godmother who discovers her two goddaughters were kidnapped by their father in order to be trafficked so he can settle a drug debt, and a global search for the girls ensues."
5. Law, Jeannie Ortega (2016-07-11). "'Caged No More' Producer Says 'Christians Must Lead Charge' to End Sex Trafficking (Interview)". The Christian Post. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.
  The article notes: "Inspired by real life events, "Caged No More" is meant to spread awareness about trafficking victims by telling the story of Aggie Prejean, a godmother on a desperate search to find sisters Skye and Elle, who were kidnapped by their father (Kevin Sorbo). As the details behind the girls' disappearance begins to unravel, it's discovered their father has taken them overseas to be sold into slavery to settle a drug debt. Prejean enlists the help of the girls' uncle (also played by Sorbo), a well-respected local philanthropist, and his son, Wil (Alan Powell), who's a former special forces soldier, to find and rescue the girls."
6. "Caged No More". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.
  The article notes: ""Caged No More" is a drama meant to engage and educate audiences on the realities of human trafficking. The film releases January 22, 2016 nationwide. Inspired by real events."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Caged No More to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is enough coverage in reliable sources identified above to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amending this AFD discussion closure to be a straight Delete, not a Soft Delete upon further consideration. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tiridates (son of Tiran of Armenia)[edit]

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

Fails WP:Verifiability in secondary sources. He is mentioned in passing by a 5th-century Armenian author, but the only other source in the article that seems to mention him is Gibbon (18th century), who doesn't accept the authenticity of the individual as described. The best source revealed by BEFORE is this, which seems reliable but the relevant excerpt is just a translation or paraphrase of the original primary source. I also checked two other sources, this and this, both very detailed on the subject of 4th-century Roman-Armenian relations, and they have nothing to say about a Tiridates matching this one's description. If he existed, modern sources simply failed to take note of him. Avilich (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Armenia. Avilich (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the "5th-century Armenian author" you mention is Khorenatsi, as cited in the article. What about the Kurkjian History of Armenia reference? Was that a failed verification? Jfire (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case the original statement isn't clear enough, yes, failed verification. Kurkjian only mentions 'Tiran and his family', never Trdat (Tiridates). Avilich (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 19:57, 6 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!} 01:56, 11 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!} 03:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator's rationale seems convincing enough to me, and nobody else is weighing in. Jfire (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's relisted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of much of anything for sourcing and iffy based on what's explained above. I don't find anything in Gscholar or Jstor. Oaktree b (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, there are some mentions of his son-in-law (the father of this guy we're talking about). Nothing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 03:43, 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) 04:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tino Hernandez[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Currently, there are seven sources in the article. One is a copy on an Instragram post; one is a podcast; and one is primary. This only leaves three references, two of which are the same article and all of which look like standard paid-for PR pieces. Searching online turns up very little, but that little just ended up being more of the same. I don't see any sign of notability either in the article or online. - Bilby (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, removed the SEO/PR fake news links. The rest is primary/PR. I did not find anything suitable in a search, but the name is pretty common, so lots of false positives, and a few more SEO hits. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Arizona. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is spammy PR fluff. the only Tino Martinez I bring up that might be notable is a NY Times article about the head of the Housing Authority there. I hope they give Tino his money back, he paid them to write a deleted article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh ok, he's a crypto person. Now it makes sense. This is more crypto fluff, trying to boost their image. Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PR puff piece with no redeeming features. scope_creep^Talk 10:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Tino Hernandez*** not Martinez and I'm actually a real estate and consulting firm owner who happens to be in crypto since 2014. Not trying to boost my "image". I have a real brick and mortar business. I speak on stages around the world teaching people about real estate and sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.183.150.82 (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:36, 20 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Un-ok[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTRACK. Also only based on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Korea. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:43, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Trusov[edit]

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

Ex-holder of two Guinness World records, with no any other achievements whatsover. His article on ru.wikipedia has been deleted twice for lack of any national achievements [54]. Materialscientist (talk) 01:48, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don’t think someone who at some point held two Guinness World Records in something obscure should have a Wikipedia page. There was also a lot of misinformation regarding his kick-boxing career. Claims were made such as Pavel was a 10 time champion of his region and 2 time champion of Russia. It’s impossible to find online sources whether it be some kind of news website, record page or a video that showcases any of that. His Russian Wikipedia page was already deleted for the same reason that Pavel simply has no reliable sources and doesn’t meet the criteria to even be considered as an actual athlete. Allegedly his kick-boxing achievements only consist of some wins that Pavel had when he was younger than 15 years old according to Russian Wikipedia delete discussion [55].

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamvladd2000 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if bro is notable as a record-setter, then ig the relevant page listing the title holders should list him but it does not seem like bro is notable enough on 'is own, aye WesSirius (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the link for the first reference is broken, and I doubt the source's reliability because it is an interview. Apart from the Guiness record, Trusov has no awards or official titles. IMHO, he does not meet general WP criteria or those for WP:ATHLETE. ThegaBolt (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe that these Guinness records are enough to show WP notability. A long time ago these was a discussion about Guinness world records in the martial arts and they were deemed to generally not show notability (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 16#Do world records confer notability?). More importantly, there is little significant independent coverage of the records or Trusov and no indication that Trusov has ever been close to showing notability as a kickboxer. There's nothing to show he meets any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 23:55, 23 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) 04:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navin Chaddha[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. WP:BIO. UPE. Coverage is mainly interviews, or his commentary, which isn't significant or indepth. WP:BEFORE finds nothing of significance. Forbes coverage is either 404 or contributors. No secondary coverage scope_creep^Talk 00:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and California. Shellwood (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The sources appear to convey notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRed176 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA editor who has made few edits to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 14:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Examination of the references:

Ref 1 [56] WSJ Routine job annoucement. Primary.

Ref 2 [57] 25 rising stars. X of Y article. NON-RS.

Ref 3 [58] Interview and PR puff piece.

Ref 4 [59] Invitation to the world economic forum as help the needy message. PR.

Ref 6 Company stock plan. Non-RS

Ref 7 [60] Press-release.

Ref 8 [61] Passing mention of the company. Not specific to Chaddha

Ref 9 [62] Forbes Magnetic-40. Early X of Y example. NON-RS.

Ref 10 [63] Press-release

Ref 11 [64] Press-release

Ref 12 [65] Press-release. Change of name.

Ref 13 404

Well, what a sorry list. Of 13 refs 4 are press-release. 3 are non-RS, 1 passing mention, 1 primary, 1 is interview, 1 routine job annoucement and 1 interview. There is not a single WP:SECONDARY on the subject. Certainly verifies he exists. A WP:BEFORE found the exact same. Completely fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full disclosure - I'm employed by Mayfield, where Navin is a Managing Director, so I won't edit his article, but I wanted to share some more recent sources that you might not have seen. I plan to post a connected edit request on the talk page so these sources can be added. In addition to all the sources in the article, Navin was ranked number 5 in the 2022 Forbes Midas List. He has also been recently recognized by Business Insider in in-depth profiles as both a top cloud VC and a prominent venture capitalist. This final Business Insider piece discusses his investment philosophy, while also summarizing his career and investment accomplishments. VCEditor2023 (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further refs:

Ref 1 [66] X of Y profile list. Non-RS. Its a business profile listing and is not independent.
Ref 2 [67] Another profile. PR.
Ref 3 [68] An interview.
Ref 4 [69] Heres how to pitch him. Another interview. PR

So not a single secondary source, as SPA coi editor has to come and shovel more junk in support this BLP. No significant coverage, even on the BEFORE has been found. Fails WP:SICOV, WP:BIO. What is there is x of y articles, business profiles, interview and PR. No secondary coverage. scope_creep^Talk 09:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source analysis above (even without a fancy table) explains it well. Nothing to use here for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's also the second "serial entrepreneur" at AfD today after Tino. That's another word combo to watch for here I suppose, as a potential indicator of non-notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the source analysis. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a BLP page created by a now blocked editor, and prod removed by a different blocked editor. Resembles a case of UPE. The analysis of sources by User:Scope creep above looks right. On the merits, there's nothing approaching direct detailing in significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. BusterD (talk) 00:12, 25 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse Scholars[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP according to my search; some local publications with no visible editorial policies have mentioned the organization, mostly in reference to the bicycle race mentioned in the article or interviews with the founder (e.g. https://www.dailycamera.com/2019/11/21/colorados-largest-all-women-bike-ride-moves-to-lyons/, https://issuu.com/hinsdalemagazine/docs/november2016/17) but it is hardly extensive and reliable coverage. Trikekus (:3) 01:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and United States of America. Trikekus (:3) 01:27, 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.