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The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iodosilane[edit]

Iodosilane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod (proposed deletion). This page does not indicate its notability. Also iodosilane is not significant enough. Mast303 (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep It's covered in three peer-reviewed journals, one explaining the microwave spectra of the compound. That's about as detailed as you could want for a compound. Oaktree b (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  and dozens of citations and articles in Gscholar about the compound and various reactions it undergoes, dating back to at least 1984. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close No way this is going to be deleted. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI about the nominator being a sock (which is pretty obvious) and being disruptive. This silly nomination does not look good in this respect. --Cavarrone 16:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this deletion nomination. Mast303 (talk) 18:51, 28 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melrose Bickerstaff[edit]

Melrose Bickerstaff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:09, 13 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!} 23:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the article is an absolute mess of primary sources, unreliable sources and passing mentions, and a search brought up nothing better. Clear WP:GNG failure. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Devonian Wombat lacks indepth sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. We have tended to keep the winner, place, and show of major reality shows. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bearian: she didn't win though, she was the runner-up. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your link doesn't talk about winners of reality shows. But see WP:TOP4 which says that who wins is not the issue. BruceThomson (talk) 06:01, 30 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!} 23:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you, BruceThomson, for pointing out the change in policy to TOP4. Striking my prior comments. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As this is primarily due to lack of participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okechukwu Amah[edit]

Okechukwu Amah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional biography of a living person. Does not meet the general notability guidelines for academics. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: it's a mess, but he seems to have published a lot. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:11, 13 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!} 20:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I considered nominating this myself but held off because of the Google scholar citation indicators which seemed solid. Maybe borderline but I’m not convinced deletion is appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This sort of article, a primary-sourced listing of career milestones, is ok for academics who pass WP:PROF, but not ok if we are aiming for notability through WP:GNG; in that case, we need instead in-depth reliable independent secondary sources, and we don't have those. But I don't think he passes WP:PROF either: the citation record, while respectable, is not enough to convince me of passing WP:PROF#C1. "He seems to have published a lot" is not a notability criterion. His managerial and administrative roles are not high enough for notability that way. And I see nothing else that could even be a claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 30 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. Star Mississippi 17:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers[edit]

List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Though an interesting topic, this fails WP:NOTSTATS, as this article is simply a database / directory of everyone who has scored a goal in the World Cup. The first two sections should be kept somewhere, but the country by country tally of goals scored should be removed.

This article could be improved to just list the top scorers of each country, but we do not need to list the 2 players who have scored for Iceland, or the one player who has scored for Bolivia. Natg 19 (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Lists. Natg 19 (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per NOTSTATS. We already have FIFA World Cup top goalscorers which is a notable topic and covers it sufficiently. GiantSnowman 11:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Snowman. Sorry, Alphonso. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:TRIVIA. The only encyclopedic content is already covered at FIFA World Cup top goalscorers, which isn't a random intersection of pointless stats like this is. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Goalscorers are unsourced. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this article gets deleted, there are similar articles that should also be considered: List of FIFA Women's World Cup goalscorers, List of FIFA Confederations Cup goalscorers, List of UEFA European Championship goalscorers, List of UEFA Nations League Finals goalscorers, List of CONCACAF Gold Cup goalscorers, List of FIFA Club World Cup goalscorers. Natg 19 (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• They all sound like good candidates for deletion too, for the same reasons as this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I strongly disagree, I know many journalist and pundits who use these for statistical analysis, where do I go for complete lists of goals scorers per country? Scoring just at single goal at a World Cup is a life defining achievement for these Men and women HazardsRabona (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:NLIST as an important statistic and an exclusive list. Not every statistic is NOTSTATS. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GiantSnowman and WP:NOTSTATS. Angelo (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1(3). (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Henry[edit]

Lee Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete no charted singles, no critical notice of their work. Not passing MUSIC or even GNG. Nothing turns up in Google, they appear to have faded away. We wish them well. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment After some digging - it would appear that they havent faded away but changed moniker - see Lukas Setto as current artist name. There is recent coverage here on Lukas Setto: deep tech mag. More coverage: [1] and [2]. I've added to the article with further refs. This one needs more research ResonantDis_tortion 08:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Secondary source for the multiple monikers [https://www.soulandjazzandfunk.com/news/doing-it-again/]. There's coverage out there for Lukas Setto should be sufficient for WP:GNG. pinging @Boleyn and @Oaktree b for reassessment. ResonantDis_tortion 09:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that seems sufficient for GNG. Keep Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same - Keep - based upon several new sources found which are significant coverage and independent, and quite possibly a bit of WP:HEY ResonantDis_tortion 22:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Has plenty of reliable sources. NYC Guru (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination after the excellent work done on this has shown he is notable. Thanks, everyone, for proving me wrong. Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Good improvements. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 17:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Esteba[edit]

Manuel Esteba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This doesn't meet WP:N and has been tagged as such for more than a decade. Working in the entertainment field, but not notable. Boleyn (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep This is a difficult one to source online given the time period and language barriers, but I see indications that sources are available. He has entries (albeit brief) in Directores de cine en Cataluña: de la A a la Z and Alicantinos en el cine. Cineastas en Alicante, suggesting to me that a diligent editor, especially one who speaks Spanish or is familiar with Spanish cinema of the 60s-80s could turn up other sources. Searches using his full name "Manuel Esteba Gallego" and combining it with names of some of his works shows additional potential. Jfire (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Although it is a bit difficult to get references in English when looking in the Spanish version you can find better sources. Franco98silva (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. SNOW. (non-admin closure) Mvqr (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Flattery[edit]

Willie Flattery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

non-notable former NFL player. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Flattery played 16 games in the National Football League, all but two as a starter, and received much coverage as he was regarded as one of the greatest tackles in the area: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] etc. IAR if not GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: 16 games in the NFL (with 14 of them being starts) easily meets WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and I should probably have just closed this one given that BeanieFan11 has demonstrated SIGCOV. I sincerely hope that the OP will not continue this batch of poor noms now that he has been made aware that he is creating unnecessary extra work for other editors. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is improving articles creating "unnecessary work"? Therapyisgood (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a game to you? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Because these are notable articles, and nominating them for deletion is placing a huge strain on me because I have things in real life that I need to do, but I'm not getting them done because I'm too worried that unless I save these articles, they will be deleted! BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources found by BeanieFan11. On a sidenote, while Flattery played as a professional, his notability seems to stem from his college career per the sources. Playing in the NFL, especially in its early days, does not equal notability. While the nominator could improve the wording of the nomination, he is not in the wrong with the nomination. Alvaldi (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG clearly. I would further argue that there is no such thing as a "non-notable former NFL player" --Paul McDonald (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes GNG per sources above and in article. Cbl62 (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per snow Keep and full notability of the subject, both in college and professional pioneering football. Please hesitate a bit before nomming obviously notable players, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources provided by BeanieFan. Certainly enough to pass WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 19:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage of the subject appears to be presented above in order to meet the GNG notability requirement. Others should stop making claims of "number of games played", which has nothing to do with notability. Silverseren^C 01:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep References now in the article are adequate to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources (specifically this one and this one) added to the article include significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. Those sources pre-date his professional career, but being notable as a collegiate athlete still contributes to being notable for purposes of WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929). There's consensus that the sources are insufficient to support notability, and redirection is an uncontested ATD. This redirect target seems to have the most support; if there's a desire to discuss that issue further, feel free to start an RFD discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Comer (American football)[edit]

John Comer (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

non-notable NFL player who played in 1 NFL game in 1926. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not going to vote on this one as of now, but I will say that sources for this individual seem to be lacking tremendously, so a deeper before search will shed some light on whether this one has sufficient sourcing or not. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (my edits)} 21:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on some of the other articles included in this spate of noms, I seriously question if BEFORE was actually performed properly. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What evidence do you have that he's notable? Therapyisgood (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You have a lot of nerve to demand that I spend time on this when you weren't willing to do any due diligence before nominating. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wrong. That's also how this process works. The article is nominated for deletion because an editor believes it fails GNG. Other editors find sources to confront the nominator, who has a responsibility to do a BEFORE search. If you don't like it, don't participate. If you don't have the temperament to participate constructively in AFD discussions I suggest you bow out. Therapyisgood (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      If you want to pick a fight with someone, find another target. I'm not impressed with your tactics, and I hope you'll read my comment at your talk page with a slightly more open mind. You may not like what I have to say, but I know how things work around here. As far as this AfD is concerned, I stand by what I've already said. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      So much for that. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Was unable to find any significant sources during a search, including on Newspapers.com. Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players would be my first choice, otherwise delete. Alvaldi (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• keep passes WP:GNG and also fits our typical pattern of having articles on NFL football players.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The best I could find is this – it seems Comer also played several seasons of pro ball for the Toronto (Ohio) Tigers – this may help in searches. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players as alternative to deletion. Fails GNG as well as WP:SPORTBASIC (prong 5) which mandates that sports bios have at least one piece of SIGCOV. Willing to reconsider if SIGCOV is found and added to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Being a multi-sport professional athlete is notable. SIGCOV likely exists, but we are limited by what's available to us at the moment on sites like NewsPapers.com. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just letting you know the Toronto Tigers were a football team, so he only played one sport (or did you find something saying he played two?) BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not catch that, thank you. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking my vote, I just don't know. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above, as one of 90 players from the pioneering Canton Bulldogs with encyclopedic articles, and his time with the Toronto Tigers. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems several comments were accidentally removed when Hey man I'm josh !voted. I've restored them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you @BeanieFan11, I must have been looking at and replying to a previous version when I accidently removed those replies. Sorry about the inconvenience folks. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I had to have been looking at a previous version to miss that I had already voted in this AfD prior to me accidently removing several replies. Thank you for taking special care to not re-add my original vote, as that would have ended up looking like I tried to vote twice. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The notability requirement for sports subjects is the GNG. If significant coverage of the subject as a person are not available, then they aren't notable, period. We already determined this via community consensus regarding NSPORTS months ago. Unless someone can present the required significant coverage, this article should be deleted. Saying "sigcov likely exists" is not appropriate for an AfD discussion. This is the place where sigcov needs to be presented, that is the entire point. If it can't be shown, then the subject is non-notable. I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of said coverage likely existing without actually having it be presented. If such an action is not heeded by the closer, then I expect I will have to take this to DRV afterwards. Silverseren^C 01:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of said coverage likely existing without actually having it be presented. – No, they should not be ignored. Saying that coverage is likely to exist (considering the age and topic) is a perfectly valid argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a valid argument for sportspeople, articles on which are required by WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 to include at least one example of WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect Complete failure to find SIGCOV in RS. My search on newspapers.com has returned only the article Beanie clipped above announcing his contract and another from the same paper mentioning him as one of a few players who left the team. My Google BEFORE is only getting blog posts and databases. LEPRICAVARK's keep is clearly a WP:POINTY stab at the nominator and does not actually address the subject of this article. Randy Kryn's keep seems to be on the basis that some other Canton Bulldogs are notable and the team itself is, but I think WP:NOTINHERITED applies there. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless an editor can provide references to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this person. That passing mention in a newspaper article is nowhere near enough. I have no objection to a redirect. Cullen328 (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players, a complete list where this individual is mentioned. The article subject fails WP:NSPORT and fails WP:GNG, and could reasonably be deleted in light of WP:DEL-REASON#8 (i.e. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline). I will remind people present in this discussion of WP:CONLEVEL, namely that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope (internal links omitted, emphasis mine). The WP:NSPORTS2022 was long, contentious, and closed with a consensus that sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. What we're dealing with here is currently a situation where everyone agrees that zero sources are known that provide significant coverage, but some people are saying that we should decide in this limited time and place that the community consensus about sportspeople needing evidence of significant coverage does not apply here—that plainly isn't how consensus works on Wikipedia, and this article subject does not warrant an article in light of the community consensus.
  That all being said, I do think the list that mentions that this individual played for the Canton Bulldogs is a reasonable use of WP:ATD-R and that a redirect to that list would be useful (though the list itself could be improved). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no objection to the redirect target of List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929), as suggested by Levivich below. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG and also fits our typical pattern of having an articles on a NFL football player who fit under older but now deprecated notability guidelines. Randy Peck (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC) — Randy Peck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• • How do you know this when you only created you're account a week ago and these are you're first edits in wikipedia-space? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You already asked for links to documentation in another thread. You can visit the Teahouse for help on navigating Wikipedia if you need it. 166.205.97.35 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players per above. I oppose deletion since he is a reasonable search term and appears on the the target list. Frank Anchor 15:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A very brief and routine blurb in local news about taking a job is not sufficient to establish notability. ValarianB (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players per WP:ATD. Hatman31 (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Hatman31. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @ActivelyDisinterested, Hatman31, Frank Anchor, Red-tailed hawk, Indy beetle, Cbl62, and Alvaldi: If it must be redirected I think List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929) would be a better target – at least with that you learn something about him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection, seems a better target. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No objections from me. Alvaldi (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Objection for two reasons. First, the list is for people who played only one game; I have not seen a source which indicates Comer only played one game, we have evidence that he played only one season, which is materially different. So instead of the reader learning something, you'd be misinforming them. Secondly does that list even meet WP:NLIST? At any rate, List of Canton Bulldogs players seems the only accurate redirect target -Indy beetle (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: PFR: G: 1; GS: 1 – you could afd the list if you really want, but its previously been kept (and I even voted to delete). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck part of my rationale. Secondly, according to the pro-football reference you just provided, his death date was June 28, 1950. There was a "John Hooks Comer", the police chief of Toronto, Ohio, who died that day -> Ap wire. I can't confirm whether these are the same person. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 99.9999% certain they're the same – both John Hooks Comer, and both related to Toronto, OH. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you, but the AP wire treats "Hooks" like a middle name but other sources treat it like a nickname. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. I would be okay with either target. Frank Anchor 21:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to redirecting there. I do suspect that the list is notable inasmuch as WP:NLIST is concerned; I'd be shocked if there haven't been two substantial newspaper articles in the past hundred years about the general group of people who have played in only one NFL game. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929): as the best redirect target, and add his name to the List of Canton Bulldogs players. There is not enough WP:RS biographical information to write an article about this person. Levivich (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to any of the redirect targets, but the lack of WP:SIGCOV and the most tenuous assertion of notability I can think of (one game? really?) this is not appropriate for a standalone article. --(loopback) ping/whereis 08:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players, lacking any significant coverage. I hope and trust the closing admin discounts those keep proponents claiming -- either meretriciously or ignorantly -- that playing a single freaking game in the NFL automatically confers notability, when no notability guideline says so. My answer to those who claim a relative lack of newspaper coverage in the 1920s -- which is bullshit on the face of it, given the vastly greater number of newspapers in that day -- is that "Then a Wikipedia article on the subject cannot be sustained." Ravenswing 17:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete, per the arguments above. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete due to lack of SIGCOV. Playing a certain number of games (one, in this case) at a certain level does not satisfy GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect due to lack of SIGCOV, but frankly I'm also OK with getting rid of it entirely. The 2022 NSPORTS discussion decided decisively against participation-based notability criteria, and that's all that exists here. FOARP (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Advigov[edit]

Vladimir Advigov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Can't find anything outside of database websites or Wikipedia mirrors, no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC in my searches using his Serbian Cyrillic name. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Angelo (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus among editors is that coverage of this article subject meets GNG. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Robb[edit]

Stan Robb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

non-notable former NFL player who played in 3 games in 1926. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Robb played three games in the NFL (starting all three, and scoring a touchdown, too), played several seasons of pro football in other leagues ([12]), and I find it very likely he has sufficient sigcov to pass gng, as one newspaper wrote that he "gained national repute as one of the fastest ends ever turned out at Centre College" (its just that many old newspapers are not online or available – also, here he is mentioned as being part of a team that would be "the greatest collection of college stars ever seen on a Delaware county gridiron") – He also received numerous mentions in newspapers which I believe could be combined to show notability, under the clause of NBIO which states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability": [13] [14] [15] (a decent sized report in the Hartford Courant) [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. Sure, they're mostly short, but when I think about the sources, "could I develop a decent biography out of this," I think "yes." I'll try to expand it soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe that BeanieFan11 has provided sufficient evidence of SIGCOV. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clear pass of [[WP:GNG].--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BeanieFan11's excellent research. These time-sink nominations would be best kept on the drawing board and not added to RfD mainspace, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I believe BeanieFan11 has demonostrated that SIGCOV exists and that this user is notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the references provided by BeanieFan, making this a pass of WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 20:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources given above do appear to be significant enough coverage to meet the GNG, which is the only notability standard that matters when it comes to sports related biographies. Silverseren^C 01:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the analysis above by BeanieFan11 whose reseach shows that Robb meets WP:BASIC, which says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources found but not byet in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Canton Bulldogs: because there isn't enough WP:RS material to write a biography of the player. Newspaper reports describing games he played in will turn up a lot of hits for his name in search results, but that's not enough to write a biography. We know very little about this person other than that he played a few games for the Bulldogs; just put that in the article about the Bulldogs, no need for a separate page. Levivich (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I currently have to finish a draft I'm working on (I've got a ton of tabs open and I can't delete them all), but afterwards, I will prove to you that a decent biography can be written of this player. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, merging his biography with the Canton article would make no sense – its long enough already and you would need to balance it by adding other biographies, which would make it way too long. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      @BeanieFan11: show me a source for Stan Robb like this Boston Globe obit for William Brooks and I'll change my !vote. Good job with the Brooks draft. I think there is enough room in the Canton Bulldogs article to mention significant players (indeed, the article would be incomplete without that), but I'd be fine with merging to List of Canton Bulldogs players as well (which could be expanded with paragraph-long player bios). Levivich (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BeanieFan. Snow close this. Carrite (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per Levivich. We don't accept routine transactional and game coverage for contemporary athletes due to their content being unencyclopedick, and the same type of material doesn't magically become adequate just because it's on an athlete from 100 years ago. JoelleJay (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge True, the citations here have more meat than the ones at the Marv Smith article, which are just statistical errata. But still, it is just "well, he's hired" bits in the local paper. Insufficient notability. Zaathras (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Routine game coverage isn't sufficient to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer. If the consensus is not in favor of keeping, please move to draftspace so I can improve this and show that a decent biographical article can be written. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Levivich and NSPORTS, no SIGCOV, only participation-based notability=not notable. FOARP (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marv Smith[edit]

Marv Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

a WP:BEFORE yields no results. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on some of the other articles included in this spate of noms, I seriously question if BEFORE was actually performed properly. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What evidence do you have that he passes WP:GNG? He played in one game in the 1920s. Therapyisgood (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Was unable to find any significant sources during a search, including on Newspapers.com, only brief trivial mentions. Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players would be my first choice, otherwise delete. Alvaldi (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• keep passes WP:GNG and matches the pattern of NFL players are normally considered notabile. NFL stats. I'm not suprised that online sources are lacking for a football player from 1921, even online records for Purdue don't go back that far.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per logic above. Pioneering players in the NFL have historical reason to have encyclopedia articles on sites like Wikipedia to provide readers with a fuller collection of significantly related pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes GNG. SIGCOV likely exists, it's not available to us yet on newspapers.com, but may be in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking my vote. I'm not sure how I feel at this point. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• For the closing admin, see this where User:Randy Kryn was canvassed by BeanieFan11 to vote where the AFDs were "close". here is the original diff. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • And please see here where he ASKED me to – when a user asks someone to show them a list of AFDs, it is not canvassing. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request editor Therapyisgood strike accusation of canvassing as stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Babcock. Not canvassing, just confusion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The notability requirement for sports subjects is the GNG. If significant coverage of the subject as a person are not available, then they aren't notable, period. We already determined this via community consensus regarding NSPORTS months ago. Unless someone can present the required significant coverage, this article should be deleted. And, thus far, no evidence of such sources has been given by anyone above. I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of expected coverage without any of said coverage being presented. If such an action is not heeded by the closer, then I expect I will have to take this to DRV afterwards. Silverseren^C 01:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of expected coverage without any of said coverage being presented. – No, they should not be ignored. Considering the age and topic here, saying that coverage is likely to exist is a valid argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)'[reply]
    • WP:SPORTSCRIT #5; articles on sportspeople cannot be kept unless significant coverage is proven to exist. BilledMammal (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless some editor can furnish references to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this person, as opposed to listing his jersey number and other such trivialities. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No objection to a redirect. Cullen328 (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. @Paulmcdonald and Hey man im josh: Would you be willing to provide links to the sources (or ways to find print sources) that you believe show that the individual has been significantly covered in multiple independent reliable sources? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey @Red-tailed hawk, I often use NewsPapers.com to try to find print sources. Their archives are constantly growing, but there's still a lot of holes in their database. I believe, based on coverage that's been found in other similar situations, that coverage likely exists but is not yet available to us for Marv Smith. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, a good source of older papers online. When possible, nothing beats "boots on the ground" in the local area, so I have some local libraries I hit from time to time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per logic above. Non notable players in the NFL have no reason to have encyclopedia articles on sites like Wikipedia because without sources we can't provide readers with a full and significant pages. Randy Peck (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC) — Randy Peck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete Editors have claimed that the player meets GNG, but have been unable to provide sources demonstrating this. BilledMammal (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players or delete. The man played a single game for the Canton Bulldogs in their second season in the American Professional Football Association. There is no evidence of significant coverage presented in this discussion offered except the fact that he played a single game in that league. However, there is a community consensus established in the WP:NSPORTS2022 RfC that There is a rough consensus to eliminate participation-based criteria... The argument is that a single professional match does not seem to guarantee that sufficient sources will exist to write a well-sourced article. By removing them, editors will need to demonstrate that other SNG criteria or the GNG are met. This is reflected in the current WP:NGRIDIRON, which notes that we should defer to the basic criteria of WP:NSPORT (i.e. significant coverage in multiple independent RS) for guidance on whether an individual is notable, and also that coverage in the sorts of wide-sweeping database sources like PFR does not provide evidence of notability in and of itself. In light of this, I think that this article could be deleted per WP:DEL-REASON#8 (i.e. failing to adhere to the relevant notability guideline), but should be converted into a redirect as a reasonable alternative to deletion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks coverage in reliable sources, per others. ValarianB (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players per WP:ATD. Hatman31 (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as a target has been identified. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @ActivelyDisinterested, Hatman31, Red-tailed hawk, and Alvaldi: If it must be redirected I think List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929) would be a better target – at least with that you learn something about him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've no objections to having that as the redirect target. Alvaldi (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree seems a better redirect. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection to that as a redirect target. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: not redirect, so long as there are zero secondary sources about this topic, per our content policies. Levivich (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per BeanieFan and Lepricavark. Carrite (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players, lacking any significant coverage. I hope and trust the closing admin discounts those keep proponents claiming -- either meretriciously or ignorantly -- that playing in the NFL automatically confers notability, when no notability guideline says so. My answer to those who claim a relative lack of newspaper coverage in the 1920s -- which is bullshit on the face of it, given the vastly greater number of newspapers in that day -- is that "Then a Wikipedia article on the subject cannot be sustained." Those who claim the subject meets the GNG are invited to demonstrate the citations they surely collected before making that claim. Ravenswing 17:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is suggesting a lack of newspaper coverage in the 1920s - if anything they are suggesting the opposite, that there was a lot of newspaper coverage in the 1920s so that some of them likely covered this subject BUT little of what was available then is reasonably accessible today. Rlendog (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect, per the lack of the required SIGCOV cited in the article and the explicit rejection of participation as a criterion for presumption of GNG (which overrules claims there might be coverage in inaccessible sources). JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both citations in the article are just references that the man existed and once played football, neither meets the criteria for "significant coverage in reliable sources. Frankly I am a bit astonished at the apparent deception of several keep votes here, that claim a table of statistics establishes notability. Zaathras (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant coverage has been found. Assertions of notability must be based on actual objective evidence, not just editors' claims that it probably exists somewhere. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tulio Borgias[edit]

Tulio Borgias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Yet another attempt to use Wikipedia as a SOAPBOX, this article was created by (now) blocked and locked socks that are part of a paid ring to use several WMF projects as a means for promotion (for more details see meta:Wikiproject:Antispam/Archives/2021/MF Press Global ). In the Portuguese Wikipedia, the article was deleted several times and then salted. Pretty much every single source in the article is non-reliable and/or paid. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 19:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Brazil. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 19:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Mostly agree this is fluff, other than the Young Creators Award he won. It has an article, does it make him in any way notable? Media awards in Brazil, I'm not familiar with, at all. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b This is pretty much an internet popularity award created to promote people. In English, the Young Creators Award article was created by a sock which was also part of huge sock ring. Even in Portuguese, I don't think pt:Prêmio Jovem Brasileiro would survive a AfD. The sourcing is just awful. No reliable sources, no in-depth coverage. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 20:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just Delete it then. An "actor" with one appearance in a youtube film isn't what we use for ACTOR, and the rest is spam as explained above. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll likely nominate that award article for deletion as well, I'll see what I can dig up first before doing so. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources are terrible. Without good sources, you can't have significant coverage required for biographies of living persons. The apparent paid editing, which endangers our not-for-profit status, is icing on the cake. In 2007, this could have been excused. In 2023, this situation in untenable. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A weak WP:SNOW because several editors have qualified their keep !votes as "weak", and there are concerns about procedural issues with this nom that are being discussed at ANI. Still, it's not going to result in anything other than a keep, so might as well close this now and reduce the number of open noms in this topic area. (non-admin closure) Levivich (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Williams (guard)[edit]

Joe Williams (guard) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

a WP:BEFORE yields no results. Non-notable. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: 30 games played in the NFL, with 22 of them as a starter, is ABSOLUTELOY notable. They were also a second-team All-Pro in 1926. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Are you kidding me? Williams was an important player on the Bulldogs' undefeated 1923 football team, one of the greatest teams in NFL history, was named Second-Team All-Pro (in case you don't know what that means, he was the second-best NFL player at his position!), and played in a total of 30 games! IAR. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm on an extended semi-wikibreak, but I had to participate here. At the very least, ignoring all rules makes sense here, and I don't have to say anything that BeanieFan11 and Hey man im josh didn't already. A former All-Pro selection in the National Football League is more than enough to have a standalone article. It also seems important to remember that sources from the 1920's were significantly less prominent than now (if I'm wrong about this, somebody please correct me.) I believe this was sent to AfD in good faith, but this one doesn't make alot of sense to me. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (my edits)} 20:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, suggest moving to Joe Williams (American football player) or something similar, since much of the world has absolutely no idea that a guard is anything to do with a US sport, and may wonder whether he's a security guard, a railway guard, or a Grenadier guard, or whatever guards might exist local to them. Elemimele (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe to Joe Williams (American football guard)? (since there's other Joe Williamses who played football and have articles) BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I originally closed this as keep, but the nom took it to deletion review without discussing anything with me first and managed to convince a few people that the close was premature. It is beyond laughable to me that anyone who understands the content area could honestly believe that this article warrants deletion, but I have vacated my close and reopened to allow further discussion. Hopefully common sense will prevail soon, and people will remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to dismantle one. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Delete As it stands the subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There are no sources of significant coverage in the article, none has been presented here and I was unable to find any during a search, including on Newspapers.com. The Second-Team All-Pro selection mentioned was by a single correspondent for Collyer's Eye, a weekly sports journal published in Chicago, which does not convince me that WP:IAR applies. Neither does his games total as mere participation does not confer notability, per consensus established by WP:NSPORTS2022. If somebody has better luck finding sources, I am more than happy to change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is absolutely nonsensical to suggest that his accomplishments are not worthy of having a Wikipedia article. This is an extremely clear case where we should IAR. Deleting this would be among the most nonsensical things I have ever seen – Williams was an important member of one of the greatest football teams ever, was an original NY Giant, appeared in 30 games, almost all as a starter, and was named ALL-PRO by an official selector. Its frankly bulls**t to suggest that these are not worthy of being covered in an encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely mind-boggling. This place never ceases to amaze me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to Weak keep per sources found by BeanieFan11 below. Alvaldi (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• keep completely passes WP:GNG--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE exist exactly for pages like this. The subject was a starter in the NFL and considered one of the best players at his position as he was recognized as an All Pro by an official selector. Even if he does not pass by the letter of WP:GNG (which may not be the case anyway) due to him playing in an era where SIGCOV was not even close to the level it is now, an article is warranted as he is an objectively recognized top player of his era. Frank Anchor 00:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and brings into question if the nominator should receive more understanding of the RfD process before submitting obviously notable pages. Although nominated in good faith, time sinks of multiple noms of notable players, such as this one, indicate a misplaced lack of trust in long-term article creators. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep (With what has been presented below, I think GNG can be established now) The notability requirement for sports subjects is the GNG. If significant coverage of the subject as a person are not available, then they aren't notable, period. We already determined this via community consensus regarding NSPORTS months ago. Unless someone can present the required significant coverage, this article should be deleted. I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of "number of games played", which is not a notability requirement. If such an action is not heeded by the closer, then I expect I will have to take this to DRV afterwards. Silverseren^C 01:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of "number of games played", which is not a notability requirement. – No, the closer should not be just ignoring users saying to keep per IAR. That is a policy-based argument. And as I said above, deleting this would be extremely nonsensical given his accomplishments. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • IAR is not allowed as an argument to circumvent notability requirements. Silverseren^C 01:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • If applying the notability guidelines would not improve the encyclopedia, then it is perfectly fine to IAR. I know as an NFL editor that deleting this would not at all help the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • IAR is a policy that literally states rules should be ignored if they get in the way of improving an encyclopedia. And deletion of an objectively recognized top player of his era (specifically an All Pro) gets in the way of improving an encyclopedia. Frank Anchor 02:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Please provide a reference to the claim that the policy WP:IAR "is not allowed as an argument to circumvent notability requirements."--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There isn't a reference because the claim that "IAR is not allowed as an argument to circumvent notability requirements" is utter nonsense. First of all, GNG is a guideline, not even a policy, and IAR can be used to override policy. Second, it's IAR, not IAREN (ignore all rules except notability). Third, if there is a rule saying that IAR is not allowed to override the notability guideline, then IAR could still override that rule. Rlendog (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm seeing a lot of mentions of Williams in my newspapers.com search, I'd say he passes NBIO (If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability) as well: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34], and others here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A large number of those sources seem to be trivial mentions of Williams. Would you be willing to provide WP:THREE sources of the bunch that you think cover Williams the most significantly? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per WP:ANYBIO#1. Second-team all-pro qualifies as a well-known and significant award or honor, and my perusal of the sources provided by BeanieFan11 make me think that there is significant coverage of him in at least one reliable independent source. I'd like more, but I think he's likely to be notable based off of the current stuff, and I think that a short (but longer-than-stub) article on him can reasonably be created based off of the sourcing that I'm able to find. The article isn't in great shape at the moment, but WP:DEL-CONTENT wisely notes that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep this is at least GNG adjacent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly there is coverage, and probably a lot more existed 90 years ago that isn't particularly accessible today. Meets GNG, as should be obvious for an all-pro, even if that is not explicit in NSPORT anymore. Rlendog (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus of the editors in this discussion is that the sources found establish that GNG is met. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruel Redinger[edit]

Ruel Redinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

a WP:BEFORE search on Newspapers.com for both "Otis Redinger" and "Ruel Redinger" yields no results. There's one book on him saying he played at Penn State and joined the Army, but otherwise no go. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: He played 7 games in the NFL based off Pro-Football-Reference, that absolutely makes him notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per IAR and GNG. Redinger played 7 games in the National Football League, including 5 as a starter, and has received lots of coverage: he's been mentioned in historical football books [35] [36] [37] [38], and plenty of newspapers (even in the New York Times! Twice!) – [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] (which mentions him 23 times) [44] [45] [46] etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • First four book mentions are only in passing (yes, I looked at them), I can't access The New York Times references but based on their length and the title of one I would find it hard to believe he's notable based on those. I'm looking at the others now. Therapyisgood (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still, when someone has played more than half a dozen National Football League games, and has been mentioned in so many sources (books, nyt, loads of newspaper mentions/short articles), we should be able to keep. These could also be seen as a pass of NBIO, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's hard to find sources – at least without making a genuine effort – for players who played so long before the internet age. That's not a valid reason to delete. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources provided by BeanieFan11. Seems the subject's common name may actually be "Pete Redinger". Jweiss11 (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I looked at the sources found by BeanieFan11 but unfortunately I don't think they are enough for the subject to pass WP:GNG so I recommend a redirect to the List of Canton Bulldogs players. Note that !votes based on WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and playing a game in the NFL equals notability are not policy based and should be discounted. Alvaldi (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  With all due respect, I think I've been here long enough to know how deletion discussions work. Presumably the same can be said for the closing admin. I understand that not everyone shares my perspective, but it's a cheap move to try to win a discussion by telling the admins to ignore the other side. Also, that page you linked to is an essay that carries no underlying authority. It really is true that the sources establishing notability for early football players can be much harder to find because they often aren't available on the internet. It becomes exhausting trying to make this case when 1) a user mass-nominates a bunch of these articles and refuses to listen to objections, and 2) someone like you rushes in to tell those of us who are familiar with the content area that our opinions are invalid because they don't fit your very tight interpretation of policy. I'm genuinely not trying to be a jerk here, but it gets really old watching a handful of editors try to push the people who care about these articles out of the discussion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not trying to push anyone out of the discussion and I'm neither trying to be a jerk here. But just as you find my above statement problematic, I find it a problem when a group of editors repeatedly post non-policy based keep !votes in AfD's in an effort to keep an article of a subject that has not been shown to pass the inclusion criteria. Out of the five keep !votes so far, only two are policy based. Alvaldi (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You used an essay to claim that my !vote was not policy-based. That's hardly persuasive. As I said before, I know how deletion works. My rationale was not based on this specific case alone (Beanie has demonstrated notability in this case IMO) as much as on the broad concern that the OP is on a quest to target as many of these articles as he can. It is not reasonable for an editor to conduct low-effort BEFORE searches, dump the burden of proof on the editors who care, and then refuse to engage at his talk page before running off to deletion review when he doesn't get his way. Even if I were to concede that some of these articles are edge cases, their existence is not actively harming the encyclopedia. Yet the nom refuses to listen to anyone, and now you are lobbying for our comments to be ignored. Again, I'm not trying to assume bad faith on your part, but it is hard to avoid feeling railroaded. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that !votes based on WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and playing a game in the NFL equals notability are not policy based and should be discounted. – Users saying to keep because that coverage is extremely likely to exist, just very hard to find, is a completely valid argument for a topic like this – just as is saying that we should IAR and keep someone who has seven games of NFL experience. And FWIW, I disagree with you that the coverage is not sufficient for notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and I don't want to play waste-the-editors-time by commenting on each of the blitz of nominated articles, so please let me know which ones are close enough to comment on. Isn't there a rule about more than 11 nominations on the field at the same time (or am I thinking of something else...). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• keep sources found and provided meet WP:GNG. How about WP:IMPACT also... WP:IAR is sa valid argument if you like.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources provided by BeanieFan making this a clear pass of WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 20:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources given above do appear to be significant coverage, the newspaper ones especially. I can access them and they do specifically cover Redinger significantly. Silverseren^C 01:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources identified in this discussion are adequate to establish notability. It would be nice if editors who have access to the full text versions as opposed to snippets and headlines would actually cite and use those sources to improve the article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources provided by BeanieFan11 demonstrate that this individual has been covered significantly by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. As such, this individual passes WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG and is not precluded from having an article under WP:BIO1E, so the article should be kept. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  With respect to WP:ROUTINE objections raised below, that's part of WP:NEVENT, which obviously is not the relevant notability guideline described in WP:DEL-REASON#8. WP:SBST also characterizes routineness as an event-related criterion, but we're discussing a biographical entry here. I agree that mentions of the subject in some of the sources are brief, but I do think that they demonstrate more than a trivial mention of this individual in multiple independent reliable sources. We have enough to write a short biographical entry on the person that complies with WP:NPOV, so I do still support keeping here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, hawk, that's incorrect. WP:NSPORTS talks about routine coverage in several places: must provide reports beyond routine game coverage...game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage...(1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage... It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability...outside routine coverage of each game. WP:NSPORTS talks about "routine coverage" so much it's even Question 7 of the FAQ:

  Q7: What constitutes "non-routine" secondary coverage for sports?

  A7: Routine news coverage of sporting events, such as descriptions of what occurred, is not considered to be sufficient basis for an article, following Wikipedia's policy of not being a place for routine news coverage. There should be significant coverage directly related to the subject. In addition to Wikipedia's guidance on reliable sources, also see Wikipedia's guidance on biographies of living persons for more information.

  "Routine" is not an NEVENT thing, it is absolutely relevant to sports notability. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, though I had been looking from a general WP:NBASIC perspective since most of his notability appears to come from things other than professional sports. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, the whole coverage of the internal dissention within the team is non-routine, significant, and was carried independently in both Pittsburgh and Brooklyn (see below). The WP:NSPORTS2022 RfC required that at least one piece of SIGCOV be presented and, well, we have that. Taken together with WP:NCOLLATH given the national coverage of the individual, I see a persuasive reason to keep. The article will remain short, but I do think he's (marginally) notable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I will also note that WP:NCOLLATH seems to be written with modern college athletes in mind, though athletes who [g]ained national media attention as an individual (which we see here given the attention to him in the New York Times) are presumed notable under that guideline. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Per the sources found but not yet in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - given the vintage, I am satisfied with the sources. Rlendog (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Canton Bulldogs: or List of Canton Bulldogs players. We have sources that are game reports, and mention the subject's name, and basic roster moves, but they're all brief mentions. Even combined, it's not enough to support an entire article; we know very little about this player, there is almost no WP:RS that has biographical information (as opposed to being mentioned for having played in a game or tried out for a team). Please ping me if anyone can point to RSes that have actual biographical material about the person, happy to change my !vote. Levivich (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said at the Robb afd, I will expand each of these articles (that have a good chance of being kept or are kept) once I finish the Brooks draft I've been working on. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Multiple games in the NFL confers notability per longstanding WP practice. Carrite (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOCALCON does not override global consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. 1: a couple mentions, N. 2: mentions among lists of players, N. 3: likely insignificant mention, but the rest of the preview isn't visible. 4: trivial mention, N. 5 and 6: "Specials" to the NYT with routine transactional coverage of several players, N. 7: routine transfer coverage, N. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14: can't access. 13: mild local coverage of behavioral issues from Redinger and a teammate that would comprise at most a single sentence on wiki, N. Barring actual SIGCOV of Redinger directly in the articles I can't access, GNG has not been established and the requirements of SPORTBASIC are not met. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merging would make absolutely no sense here and I completely disagree with your source assessment, especially since "routine" does not apply to people (its part of the criteria for events). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained to you before and as has been affirmed in numerous AfDs, NSPORT uses "ROUTINE coverage" 4 times specifically in the context of athlete notability, defining it as, among other things, coverage of the subject that appears within routine coverage of events. This explicitly includes repeating of their statistics and mentions in game summaries. Furthermore, NOTNEWS also invokes "routine news coverage" as a separate entity to WP:ROUTINE that is applicable to announcements, events, sports, or celebrities. JoelleJay (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Redinger meets NBASIC based on the sources listed above; the contention that all them consist of routine coverage is incorrect. Hatman31 (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which are not routine? Levivich (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This, which describes Redinger as a "real star" and discusses the effect his transfer was expected to have on Penn State, this, which does the same and describes him as "one of the most promising young backs in the country", this, which garnered a top-of-the-page headline "DISSENSION WRECKS GRID TEAM" (although TBF the actual article is shorter than one might expect given the title's prominence), and this, which goes into further detail about the aforementioned incident and its consequences. I guess this might qualify as well, although it's just a report on his performance in training camp. Hatman31 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A routine transfer report (literally: a report in the newspaper about the transfer of personnel) that calls one of the people 'a real star' is still a routine transfer report. Similarly, a routine game report (literally: a report in a newspaper about what happened during a game) is still a routine game report even if it praises one of the players. The one about dissension at the team is, I'll grant, not a routine transfer or game report. However, it only briefly mentions the subject and provides no biographical detail. If those are four most in-depth sources we have, it doesn't change my mind. Levivich (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per JoelleJay's source analysis - We just don't have enough in-depth coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer. If the consensus is not in favor of keeping, please move to draftspace so I can improve this and show that a decent biographical article can be written. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse C. Boyd[edit]

Jesse C. Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I first saw this page when I was googling about the list of The Walking Dead characters, if I'm not mistaken, only to find short description about the actor and the filmography. I prefer seeing his information in other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes.

• 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. Bit-part at best. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - IMDB is not a reliable source. Therefore this is essentially unsourced, which violates WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes.Rlendog (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Beck (ice hockey)[edit]

Owen Beck (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. – sbaio 15:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - enough coverage from independent, reliable sources already in the article to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll just point out that while this AfD was active, Beck played his first NHL game. While playing in the NHL no longer meets NHOCKEY (almost nothing meets it now), this does meet the former NHOCKEY guideline, and I don't think we ever had a situation where we had a GNG issue for a modern NHLer (any issues were related to NHLers from many years ago). Which, besides all the reliable sources in the article, ought to give comfort that he meets our notability guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should really consider reading WP:NHOCKEY, because Beck did not meet any of the criteria listed there until playing his first NHL game on January 28, 2023. – sbaio 14:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you. He didn't meet the old version of NHOCKEY until he played his first NHL game (while this AfD was active), and even now does not meet the new version of NHOCKEY. But he does meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• As the author of this AFD – it should be closed since he played his first NHL game, which satisfies WP:NHOCKEY. – sbaio 14:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sourcing quality questions remain, but there isn't going to be a consensus to delete this article. Star Mississippi 17:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

School of Life Sciences, Lanzhou University[edit]

School of Life Sciences, Lanzhou University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A general department of Lanzhou University that does not itself meet the criteria of WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG should have a separate department page.. I redirected it to the university then, PROD but the creator of the page refused both times, so the AfD is the only option. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and China. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lanzhou University - The subject is not notable on its own, failing GNG & NSCHOOL, but a redirect could be useful here. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 13:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to keep per Mucube below. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 06:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Just a simple Google and Google Scholar search in Chinese found so many sources. (most of the sources I am listing here are academic papers I found on Google Scholar) [47][48][49][50] Also, the article on Baidu Baike is rather substantial. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject is Organization not academic person that's why it needs independent and secondary sources to meet the guidelines of SCHOOL and GNG. Your references are unreliable and primary, mostly discussing the individual's research work not the subject itself. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  3 of the 4 references are academic papers, which are reliable. All of the sources discuss the school as a whole or some particular aspect of it. They don't discuss individual research. [51] and [52] are written by people from the university, but [53] (the author 李传辉 has no association with the university) and [54] are independent, which should be enough for notability. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mucube This 1, 2 is primary and connected to the subject. This, this and this are also primary and unreliable sources (user generated research work cum directory). On the other hand, the article's page is also full of primary references. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't trying to use Baidu Baike as a source. The CNKI link isn't user-generated, CNKI is a reputable journal search database in China. Mucube (talk • contribs) 03:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I will say that in my time at AFD, I have rarely seen articles on departments or schools of universities kept unless they have sources demonstrating GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per WP:NEXIST and Mucube's analysis. –DMartin 06:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players. The keep !votes are problematic from a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS perspective, but even if I were to give them full weight, the large number of guideline-based delete/redirect !votes would still be sufficient to form a consensus. There isn't a consensus for outright deletion, so closing as redirect. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Babcock[edit]

Sam Babcock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A sufficient WP:BEFORE yields no sources, no books on him, no hits from Newspapers.com, etc. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. IAR. In my opinion eight games (which was the majority of the season, +3 as a starter) should be enough to IAR keep. I don't think deleting NFL players of that much experience improves the encyclopedia in any way ("If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it"). If I could have some time, I should be able to turn this into something decent. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: 8 games in the NFL makes a person notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking my vote, I'm just not as I was when I made this !vote. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Brady retired? I know, it's a bummer, and this guy's eight games seem pretty wimpy compared to the GOAT. Chin up, Brady might just be taking a year off. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on some of the other articles included in this spate of noms, I seriously question if BEFORE was actually performed properly. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Searched for "Sam Babcock" and "Samuel Babcock" and found only trivial mentions. Redirect to Canton Bulldogs List of Canton Bulldogs players would be my first choice, otherwise delete. Alvaldi (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players as alternative to deletion. Fails GNG as well as WP:SPORTBASIC (prong 5) which mandates that sports bios have at least one piece of SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't think playing the majority of a season in the National Football League is enough to IAR (which can trump "SPORTBASIC")? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We are talking about the NFL of the 1920s which included many small city squads (like Canton) and was not the big league that it later became. I am simply abiding by the rules established by community consensus. If something even close to SIGCOV existed, an appeal to IAR might be more palatable, but nobody has come forward with anything ever close to SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep played in the majority of a season during an era in which WP:SIGCOV did not exist even close to the level it does today. This seems like a clear case of WP:IAR to me. Frank Anchor 13:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• keep played in the NFL. Real games, not practice or pre-season. We keep those. how many of these do we have?--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NFL player articles or AFD nominations? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What policy or community consensus dictates that articles of players participating in a NFL game gets kept? Per the concensus established with WP:NSPORTS2022, mere participation in a game, including in the NFL, is not enough for inclusion in the absence of significant sources. Alvaldi (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IAR. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a robust essay that contains a Player notability discussion library.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would constitute as a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which does not override the wider Wikipedia community consensus that these subjects must have the SIGCOV to pass GNG. Playing in the NFL 100 years ago was in no way similar to playing in it today, in terms of likelihood of notability. And those are not just my words. Alvaldi (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Alvaldi. The broader Wikipedia community concluded that (1) playing in the NFL is not enough, (2) athlete bios must contain at least one piece of SIGCOV. For gridiron fans to then simply wave an IAR banner every time an NFL bio is challenged is simply flouting the broader community consensus. If this conduct persists, it is simply going to draw an even more draconian response. We as gridiron editors need to be able to police ourselves in accordance with the rules. Babcock does not appear to me to be an edge case that warrants the IAR card. Cbl62 (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Babcock played part of one season for a small city team that finished in 20th place behind other small city teams like Pottsville, Akron, and Racine. The NFL of 1926 was not the major league it later became. Cbl62 (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Babcock played part of one season for a small city team ... The NFL of 1926 was not the major league it later became. – I don't f-ing care – Babcock still played in the NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, meaning he was among the best football players of his time – and wasn't just a one-gamer, either (you say we need to respect "consensus" by getting rid of at least the one gamers, but now you're suggesting to do it to the people who have played a majority of a season, too?) Also, I'm currently in the process of contacting Pro-Football-Reference.com to see what they can find. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• “I don’t f-care” (IDFC) is not a good response to notability/inclusion standards that are based on community consensus. IAR is not intended to allow small group of fans to resist standards adopted by the broad community. If you or anybody could find something remotely approaching SIGCOV for Babcock, that would be much more persuasive than IFDC. Cbl62 (talk)|

• It's just extremely upsetting for me to see these AFD nominations. I'll end with this: I believe this article is worthy of an IAR exemption to the "standards adopted by the broad community" with eight NFL games – you may disagree – but that is my opinion and I will not change it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for examples and I gave them to you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, playing eight games in the early NFL certainly meets the standards for encyclopedic inclusion. RfD attempts of pioneers of the game should receive full encyclopedic status, especially those who easily meet standards for inclusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are a few issues with the page, most notabley the football databases disagree on who this individual is. Pro Football Reference has Babcock being born in NY in 1900 and dying in 1960. (This is what is linked in the page). Other databases have Babcock being born in Iowa in 1901 and dying in CA in 1970. (This is what is mentioned in the page). I wanted to come here and say IAR, but all that seems to be certain is Babcock went to Syracuse and played for Canton. Without other sources, verifiability is a concern. --Enos733 (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I contacted Pro-Football-Reference.com about this, awaiting a reply. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The notability requirement for sports subjects is the GNG. If significant coverage of the subject as a person are not available, then they aren't notable, period. We already determined this via community consensus regarding NSPORTS months ago. Unless someone can present the required significant coverage, this article should be deleted. I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of "number of games played", which is not a notability requirement. If such an action is not heeded by the closer, then I expect I will have to take this to DRV afterwards. Silverseren^C 01:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of "number of games played", which is not a notability requirement. – No, the closer should not be just ignoring users saying to keep per IAR. That is a policy-based argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can find significant coverage of this person in several reliable sources. This is the bare minimum required to justify a freestanding Wikipedia biography. Invoking IAR can never override the projectwide consensus that supports the GNG in these cases. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. The encyclopedia is not improved by keeping a permastub sourced to a single database entry that is devoid of prose, especially since the basic facts of his life are disputed. Cullen328 (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invoking IAR can never override the projectwide consensus that supports the GNG in these cases. – Yes it can. The name literally says "Ignore all rules" (unless you're suggesting GNG is not one?). And I disagree with you on that the project is not improved by keeping NFL players with 8 games. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I am surprised to see IAR invoked as a reason to ignore perhaps the only immovable rule of Wikipedia, WP:GNG. My own search has only turned up a marriage license and I don't see evidence of notability here. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're suggesting that "ignoring all rules" cannot be used when the issue is GNG? That doesn't make sense, or it would be called "ignore all rules except for GNG." BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I am, and your badgering isn't helping this process in any way. Nobody in this discussion has provided any evidence of notability except for vague references to WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • • Nobody in this discussion has provided any evidence of notability except for vague references to WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. – What? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players, a complete list where this individual is mentioned. The article subject fails WP:NSPORT and fails WP:GNG, and could reasonably be deleted in light of WP:DEL-REASON#8 (i.e. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline). I will remind people present in this discussion of WP:CONLEVEL, namely that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope (internal links omitted, emphasis mine). The WP:NSPORTS2022 was long, contentious, and closed with a consensus that sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. What we're dealing with here is currently a situation where everyone agrees that zero sources are present that provide significant coverage, but some people are saying that we should decide in this limited time and place that the community consensus about sportspeople needing significant coverage does not apply here—that plainly isn't how consensus works on Wikipedia, and this article subject does not warrant an article in light of the community consensus.
  That all being said, I do think the list that mentions that this individual played for the Canton Bulldogs is a reasonable use of WP:ATD-R, and I believe that a redirect to that list would be useful (though the list itself could be improved). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. The arguments to keep require imposing a local consensus overriding a broader consensus that decided participation was insufficient to establish notability; such arguments are invalid. BilledMammal (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This player played eight games in the pioneering era of the sport so keeping his page should be automatic. The extremely overly complicated consensus used for this ridiculous nomination (nommed in good faith of course but still ridiculous, eight games in the NFL!) has been questioned and a requested re-do may be pending. Come on, eight games in the 1920s?, that's as notable as can be. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players per WP:ATD. Hatman31 (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually WP:ATD supports keeping this page. Let's focus on the fact that this professional athlete played for over half a season in the era of pioneering football, that his participation is verified by two sources (NFL and PFR), and that, when you think about it, nothing is broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Per Red-tailed hawk. As a side comment IAR is appropriate for edge cases, this isn't such a situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The player played for over half a season in the pioneering years of the National Football League, confirmed by two sources which, neither here nor there, are accepted as reliable by NFL adherents, and yet...the deletion attempt continues. I'd suggest that it should be withdrawn per common sense. Played for over half a season, on the field in the mud, sourced well enough to matter, and here we are, thinking of dumping due weight overboard. I'd say that's an edge case. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: not redirect, so long as there are zero secondary sources about this topic, per our content policies. Levivich (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Multiple games in the NFL confers notability. Carrite (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is just a false statement, Carrite, and has been ever since the NSPORTS RfC determined that the GNG must be met by all sports biographies. Silverseren^C 00:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/redirect I don't see any significant coverage, just a basic stats database, so there is no basis to keep the article. This being "the era of pioneering football" gives even less weight to any theory of automatic notability, because this does not indicate as much national competition or a career that included college as it would now. Reywas92^Talk 15:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players as alternative to deletion. The content in a sports database is not nothing, it is just that the community determined that a database entry can not be used to determine notability. --Enos733 (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players, lacking any significant coverage. I hope and trust the closing admin discounts those keep proponents claiming -- either meretriciously or ignorantly -- that playing in the NFL automatically confers notability, when no notability guideline says so. Nor is working in the mud notable (and I can't believe I need to say that), and my answer to those who claim a relative lack of newspaper coverage in the 1920s -- which is bullshit on the face of it, given the vastly greater number of newspapers in that day -- is that "Then a Wikipedia article on the subject cannot be sustained." Ravenswing 17:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Thanks for the note on newspaper coverage. I'm always almost surprised when I'm researching someone from the mid 1800s to early 1900s because it seems like everybody was covered in the newspaper, even if it was just to say "this person's parents came to town for the day." ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its true that there were more newspapers then, but also true that less of those are online today/easily accessed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but many are, and we shouldn't keep an article on the premise that sources could, theoretically, exist - We need to know that they do. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or delete, per the well-reasoned arguments above. JoelleJay (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless significant coverage can be found. Playing a certain number of games at a certain level does not satisfy our notability requirements. –dlthewave ☎ 03:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect. The complete lack of WP:SIGCOV makes this outside the scope for a standalone article. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per NSPORTS. FOARP (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW, meets WP:GNG based on sources posted in the discussion. (non-admin closure) Levivich (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ja'Quan McMillian[edit]

Ja'Quan McMillian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

non-notable NFL player with no indication of lasting notability. All sources are trivial. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A person who just recently made his NFL debut (as a starter, too) and has multiple pieces of sigcov, clearly enough to pass GNG: Former ECU CB Ja'Quan McMillian impresses in NFL debut from 247Sports; Broncos roster review: Rookie cornerback Ja’Quan McMillian from SB Nation; NFL Draft Profile: Ja'Quan McMillian, Cornerback, East Carolina Pirates and Broncos Player Profile: Ja'Quan McMillian #35 from Sports Illustrated; Broncos undrafted free agent spotlight on CB Ja’Quan McMillian from Fansided; etc. Silly nomination. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As BeanieFan11 pointed out, there's quite a bit of significant coverage out there for Ja'Quan. Generally speaking, starting in an NFL game is enough to establish notability. I haven't yet seen an NFL player that started a game get deleted at AfD, and I have tried to nominate a few of them myself. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly notable. This is a head-scratching nomination. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I just realized that this nomination occurred less than 3 hours after the page was created. If this is supposed to be a joke, it's not funny. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I understand why some users might have concerns about the independence and/or reliability of some of the listed sources, but his Second-Team All-America award was also covered here by WNCT-TV. On balance, I think this adds up to a pass of NBASIC/ANYBIO. Hatman31 (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• keep passes WP:GNG, WP:IMPACT, WP:N... --Paul McDonald (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep Randy Kryn (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Proper sourcing and coverage is presented above, one of the few cases in these sports AfDs where that's been done. Silverseren^C 01:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep References currently in the article are adequate to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources linked above by BeanieFan11 demonstrate that this individual has been covered significantly by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of more than a single event. As such, the individual passes WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG and is not precluded from having an article by WP:BLP1E, so the article should be kept (and improved to include more info from these sources). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG with the significant coverage found by BeanieFan11. Alvaldi (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to the work that has been done to the article since this AFD was started. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aivar Kisel[edit]

Aivar Kisel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Played in youth level, no WP:SIGCOV. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Estonia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Was unable to find any sources and there is no indication that he had any significant career. Alvaldi (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deprodded so ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Alvaldi. BilledMammal (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. With this discussion highlighting that the article is clearly a hoax and moving towards !votes for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G3, no need to delay its extinction. ^Complex/_Rational 01:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murexia xenochromus[edit]

Murexia xenochromus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article appears to be a hoax. I can find no evidence for this name in any of the literature, and the sources cited here do not mention the name.

I am very familiar with the taxonomic literature for this group and I am confident the name has no basis in reality. The cited authority, Tate & Archbold (1941), does not include this name. There is a corresponding Wikispecies article that I got deleted; it attributed the name to Laurie (1952) instead, which doesn't include the name either. Neither does it appear in Flannery's (1995) book on the Mammals of New Guinea, Van Dyck (2002) who reviewed this group, Groves (2005) a major taxonomic compendium, Krajewski et al. (2007) a recent paper about this group, or the American Society of Mammalogists' Mammal Diversity Database.

I found two online references to the name:

• A forum thread that references xenochromus as a subspecies.
• A picture on Commons that purports to be the holotype of xenochromus. However, specimen BMNH 1911.11.29.10 is actually the holotype of Phascogale venusta rubrata (=Neophascogale lorentzii), a different New Guinea dasyurid (BMNH catalog). If you zoom in on the picture, you can indeed see a handwritten label Phascogale venusta rubrata.
  • Edit: The picture is an altered copy of commons:File:Speckled dasyure (Neophascogale lorentzii) .jpg, with the name edited and the colors changed. Ucucha (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is sourced to UK's Natural History Museum's collection, probably a reliable source.--Túrelio (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References:

• Flannery, T.F. 1995. Mammals of New Guinea. Reed Books, 568 pp.
• Groves, C.P. 2005. Order Dasyuromorphia. Pp. 23–37 in Wilson, D.E. and Reeder, D.M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2142 pp.
• Krajewski, C., Torunsky, R., Sipiorski, J.T. and Westerman, M. 2007. Phylogenetic relationships of the dasyurid marsupial genus _Murexia_. Journal of Mammalogy 88(3):696-705. doi:10.1644/06-MAMM-A-310R.1
• Laurie, E.M.O. 1952. Mammals collected by Mr. Shaw Mayer in New Guinea, 1932–1949. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Zoology)1(10):269-318.
• Tate, G.H.H. and Archbold, R. 1941. Results of the Archbold Expeditions. No. 31. New rodents and marsupials from New Guinea. American Museum Novitates 1101:1-9.
• Van Dyck, S. 2002. Morphology-based revision of _Murexia_ and _Antechinus_ (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae). Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 48:239-330.

I believe this is an elaborate hoax. Ucucha (talk) 16:59, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have no competence in this area to make a judgement hoax vs real. What I have done is started c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Murexia xenochromus specimen.jpg to alert Commons that there is/may be a problem. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I deleted this file on Commons as fake. All other images were deleted as copyvios by another admin. Yann (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've dug quite deep now, and it appears that every mention of the name on the web can ultimately be traced back to WP. Note, the taxon was also present at Dasyuridae, inserted by the same author [55], before being removed last December [56]. One peculiar exception: the forum thread linked above predates WP appearance of the name by three years. Still, overall it sure does look like a hoax. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Elmidae Does this cast doubt on that author's other uploads to Commons? See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Big_baboon_272 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it does, but maybe Ucucha may be placed to identify these guys by habitus? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be confident identifying these, as many of these dasyurids look quite similar and I don't have experience with the animals themselves, only their names, but based on the pictures in Flannery (1995) the identifications look solid. For example, Murexia rothschildi indeed has a broad black stripe, and Murexia melanurus has a yellow rump and black tail.

I'm a bit skeptical about the sourcing for these images though, given what we now know about the author. They claim the pictures were own work, but these are hard-to-find tiny mammals living in a remote place (New Guinea); there aren't a lot of people who really would be able to have pictures of them in the wild. So we should seriously investigate the possibility that the pictures were taken from somewhere else. Notice that commons:File:Murexia_habbema.jpg has an "(a)", suggestive it was part of a multi-part figure in some source. The most likely candidate would probably be the marsupial volume of Handbook of Mammals of the World, but I don't own a copy so can't check. Ucucha (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, found the source. I'll continue this discussions over on Commons. Ucucha (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ucucha, @Elmidae I have created a precautionary DR at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Big baboon 272. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete should never have been accepted at AfC as the sources are not about claimed subject. I can find no evidence of existence and the manipulated image shows this is clearly a deliberate hoax. KylieTastic (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone got the energy to go through the rest of the users edits as I'm sure well find more issues - unless they were not the origin of the hoax but took this from another source that was the hoax. KylieTastic (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABig+baboon+272 where this Commons uploader has been indexed for fake image and copyright image upload. See also https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=728552248#image-manipulator section "Image manipulator" for the Commons Admin take 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also see ANI where interested parties are requested to contribute. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• G3 Speedy Delete - Clearly a hoax. I removed the references as none of them mention the topic. –dlthewave ☎ 23:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I didn't know it was hoax at that time when I reviewed this through AFC, as I 'forgot' (more like should have done) the reference checking. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:24, 29 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) 19:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Socially (app)[edit]

Socially (app) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article on a non-notable app sourced to a company listing site, Google Play and Wikimedia Commons (!!) This would be an A7 candidate if software were eligible for A7, but it's not, so here we are. Spicy (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Spicy (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no real sources and it's not even close to the most notable mobile app named "socially". Skynxnex (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: No reliable soources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 17:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotland enigma[edit]

Gotland enigma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is interesting stuff, but very much the work and synthesis of a single researcher, Troppenz. His book [57] is the only source of related material; all the other opinions cited in the article are otherwise unpublished personal communications that Troppenz recounts. We can't really sustain an article based on one author developing a hypothesis in one non-peer-reviewed work. WP:TOOSOON. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Organisms. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- It should be expected, as is, that a subject so unknown does not have much literature on it. While yes, I do agree with you on the points you make about the re-accounts of the quotes. However, more people than expected know about it: Sven Littkowsky is one of the people I'm focusing on. Sven has worked with Troppenz and others to make this artwork which has the Gotland Enigma in it. While not similar, the Francevillian biota article covers a topic that is not widely known, like the page I made, however on a topic that is relatively more well known just for its importance. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are no other sources discussing it other than the one given. GNG needs at least a few sources (more than one) for notability. We don't have that here. I don't see anything in Jstor or Gscholar. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No matter how well-meaning, the article's creator has long had a tendency of delving into the most obscure and technically most challenging areas of ancient palaeontology with tons of enthusiasm, but without a sound understanding of the complexities of the topic, and bravely churns out new articles based upon old, outdated or theoretical publications. I fear this one is no exception. The author of the Researchgate article on which this detailed page is solely based, states in their ResearchGate bio "Goal: I wrote books about multicellulary life in the "Pre-Cambrian", especially in the Paleo- and Mesoproterozoic. I am connected with paleontologists, who work in the Proterozoic and the Archaean to find multizellular organisms. My goal is to get more verifications and proofs for my findings and theses." (see here).

Unless sources for highly speculative fossils or pseudofossils are derived from multiple, serious, peer-reviewed scientific papers with an extremely high degree of professional competence, simply basing a Wikipedia article on one journalist's imaginings in this specialised field is most unwise. It is simply WP:TOOSOON. I have previously advised User:Rugoconites Tenuirugosus of my concerns over their misinterpretation or incorrect use of sources that are not WP:RS, and I see it once again here. Whilst undoubtedly done in WP:AGF, this simply does not meet the standards we need to set in such specialised, technical areas, unless we are willing to see Wikipedia become the promoter of vague interpretation, hypothesis and imaginary artists' illustrations. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; more than one source is needed to notability. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A single self-published source clearly fails the WP:GNG. 23:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Draftify or delete. I concur that the topic is not notable - the article is based on a niche work of dubious reliability (is the author reliable? publisher? I don't see what makes them so?). In the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, I can only suggesting that this experiment is draftified instead of being deleted. Maybe the topic will become notable one day, when reliable sources discuss it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Sweden. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Agencies Serving South Asians[edit]

Council of Agencies Serving South Asians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about an organization, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for organizations. As always, organizations are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but rather they must pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on the depth and geographic range of their media coverage -- but six of the eight footnotes here are the organization's own self-published content about itself, one is entirely tangential verification of a stray fact in a source that fails to mention this organization at all in conjunction with said fact, and one is a deadlinked (but locatable via ProQuest) news article that isn't about this organization, but just briefly glances off its existence in the context of quoting its executive director as a provider of soundbite on a topic other than the organization itself.
All of which means that absolutely none of the sources here represent third-party coverage about the organization in sources independent of itself -- and even on that ProQuest search I undertook to find the deadlinked Toronto Star article, I still just get a lot of namechecks rather than substantive coverage that would pass either GNG or ORGDEPTH. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 27 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) 19:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jagathalaprathapan (1990 film)[edit]

Jagathalaprathapan (1990 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Can't find any third-party sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 13:02, 27 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) 19:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Bhalerao[edit]

Vivek Bhalerao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Having searched the net for references, I am convinced that Vivek Bhalerao entirely fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. I found a few blogs and his own website, and the one page that is referenced in the article, but there is no wider coverage. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Did research to see if I could find anything on him, couldnt find any information on him, but his own website. Fails [WP:NBASIC]] and WP:ANYBIO. Further, seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO. --RealPharmer3 (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing found at all for this person. Links for other people on social media and linkedin, no musicians found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NBASIC, Nothing at all was discovered in RS for the musician. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:06, 28 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) 19:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

André Weiß[edit]

André Weiß (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Had to end his career after just a few games due to injury. I have found no noteworthy coverage in reliable sources, and frankly not much at all beyond databases, WP mirrors and this [58] (archived but endearing) club profile page. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Angelo (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• DraftifyGiantSnowman I tried making findings by searching for source I was able to see this [59] [60][61] He looks like a good prospect, if work on.Epcc12345 (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  All run-of-the-mill databases, none show notability. GiantSnowman 20:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - subject is 39 years old, retired ages ago so can't see a reason to draftify, which we would only generally do if future notability is near-guaranteed. WP:SPORTBASIC needs significant coverage, excluding database coverage, which kicks out all above sources Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Croot[edit]

Jason Croot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This BLP of an actor and director is poorly sourced and there is no claim of notability that meets WP:NACTOR. Current references are YouTube (looks like a self-published video), three interviews and IMDb. There are three more interviews listed in external links, so there's been a bit of interest in him, and he directed Le Fear on which we have an article, but I don't think he meets WP:GNG. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found reliable sources to add. Has been tagged with dubious notability since 2017. Possibly WP:TOOSOON? Tacyarg (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesnt meet the criteria for WP:SIGCOV. None of the current sources are reliable secondary sources either, just interviews. Subject does not pass WP:NACTOR --RealPharmer3 (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources discussing him, Moviefone, fandango, imdb and the like. Social media hits, but no critical reviews, fails ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV. There are no reliable sources, and therefore WP:BLP is violated. Even assuming that sources could be found, I don't see how the subject passes WP:NACTOR. We would need to see both better sources and more information of roles that justify inclusion. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brightline (company)[edit]

Brightline (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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