< July 29	July 31 >

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heydi Reyes[edit]

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

The subject has made at least one appearance for the Honduras women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The article List of Honduras women's international footballers does not yet exist, so it is not a possible redirect. JTtheOG (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Honduras. JTtheOG (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage of this athlete can be found in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. –––ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 06:42, 4 August 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 Brant Pinvidic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why I'm Not... with Brant Pinvidic[edit]

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

The article mostly cites the podcast's own YouTube channel or other non-RS sites. The only good sources are about the films which inspired the podcast, not the actual podcast itself. This should probably be either deleted or redirected to Brant Pinvidic. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Internet. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brant Pinvidic because the subject is not notable. The sources barely mention the podcast. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebio Edjang[edit]

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

The subject made two official appearances for the Equatorial Guinea national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage of this athlete can be found in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 15:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deogracias Biribé[edit]

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

The subject made one appearance for the Equatorial Guinea national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage of this athlete can be found in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, couldn't sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Celts[edit]

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

WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR/WP:SYNTH WP:CROSSCAT between language family – Celtic languages – and a couple of hand-picked lists of nationalities and ethnicities which are overgeneralised to be all "Celtic", but that just isn't correct. Most of these people will speak English (a Germanic language) in they daily lives, or French (a Romance language) in the Bretons' case. (Well, not all of them. One tiny village... or one great song...).

The very opening sentence is riddled with issues: This is a collection of lists of Celts who tend to be most associated with a modern Celtic identity. "who tend to be most associated with" is just an opinion. If this were a category, it would be deleted per WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:OPINIONCAT WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH. In modern times, identifying as a "Celt" or "Celtic" is up to individuals. It is not up to Wikipedia to categorise all inhabitants of modern countries or regions as "Celts/Celtic" by default just because they "tend to be associated" with modern Celtic identity.

We just can't mix up language family and nationality/ethnicity like this. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries for a long list of precedents. Similar categories and lists involving "Germanic", "Celtic", "Slavic" and other language-family WP:CROSSCATs have already been deleted (most recently "Category:Celtic clans"). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Language. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. This reminds me of a discussion I had with an editor, some years ago, about applying unspoken/subjective/"in own head only" criteria to categorise otherwise random modern people into Category:Gaels. Notwithstanding that corollary, it seems bizarre (at best) to assume that all members of the List of Irish people or List of Welsh people or List of Scots (sub)lists are "celts". Arthur Wellesley, Laura Ashley and Khalid Abdalla are included in these respective (sub)lists. Are these people "celts"? By what measure? (Frankly think this "list of (less-than-related) lists" causes more problems than it solves, and that deleting it is probably for the best. Certainly I cannot conceive of an alternative use of the title. A redirect (to where?), DRAFTIFY (to what end?)...) Guliolopez (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given complexity over celtic identity both modern (see The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention?) and historic (maybe the person buried at Vix would have called herself a celt but we have no way of knowing) this isn't something we can really get into.©Geni (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think the nature of the term Celt (as others have covered above), which is very much a modern back-projection, is inherently compatible with a list of this sort. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As currently defined, I don't think this is a useful list. If this was covering notable celtic figures from antiquity then maybe it would be viable, but this just is just a bad cross categorisation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Seems like the best resolution between those wanting to Keep this article and those who believe it should be Deleted. Please submit to WP:AFC for review when you believe it has overcome problems pointed out in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Javon Frazier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

We need to have another discussion because someone has challenged the soft deletion. The coverage is mostly PR-based, and it still fails to meet WP:GNG. Mercenf (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Games, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR and bizcruft articles don't establish notability. I can't find anything in RS that hasn't been puffed up on this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am representing Javon Frazier, and have received an email from someone saying they were hired to delete his Wikipedia page. I realize this is a conflict of interest on my part, however, I have reason to believe this page is being targeted by someone named Lorenz. I can provide proof of this action if necessary. How should I proceed? JDAgencyHelp

Reply at User talk:JDAgencyHelp. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HASREFS I requested this article be undeleted for further work. I am willing to work on it. Looks like it was probably created for-pay initially as user has been banned. As previously stated in request, African American businesspeople are underrepresented on Wikipedia and this individual has moderate level sources, maybe we can improve the article. Forbes already linked, some interviews. Quick exact phrase Google book search returns multiple hits, but needs review. Looks like some citations got deleted in history. Will look into this more soon and vet refs. Autoshotdc (talk) 22:04 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This article is a pretty standard professional profile, and definitely requires WP:TNT, as WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Normally without an editor willing to work on the NPOV issues, I would suggest delete (Lack of NPOV is a valid reason to land on deletion when exploring WP:ATD), but since we have an editor willing to work on it, moving to draftspace seems like the best option. —siroχo 07:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Why draftify? Are you going to work on it? The creator was blocked. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  An editor in this discussion wants to work on it. —siro χ o 22:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - major contributors to the article were blocked for WP:UPE. The sourcing is a mix of sources about the products (not the person) and promotional/PR pieces. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re draftify/keep: I offered to edit. While current cited coverage on the subject is mediocre, subject has notability in that developing multiple mainstream board games is notable and this is sourced in secondary sources and primary interviews. Was able to find sources that meet GNG in Forbes, Bloomberg, Inc, IMDB and game-centric magazines that are not newswires. Per WP:SNG WP:ENT using interviews should be acceptable as well, but sources will be limited overall given the niche field and nature of entrepreneurship is self promotion. It requires some digging. Thoughts? -Autoshotdc (talk) 17:45 5 August 2023 (UTC)
@Autoshotdc: please only bold one !vote, to make it easier for closer to keep track of each participant's recommendation. See also WP:AFDFORMAT —siro χ o 22:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Will fix Autoshotdc (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
developing multiple mainstream board games is notable - Wikipedia's term "notable" isn't quite the same as the word implies. In almost all cases, we base notability on what reliable independent sources decide to cover, not on what we collectively say is "important". The full definition of notability is over at WP:N. Developing multiple mainstream board games does not produce notability on Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that subject matter does not determine notability for Wikipedia. I realize what I said before was unclear. I was replying in the context of your comment that secondary sources should not focus on products, but the BLPP. For game designers/developers/executives, their mention in most articles cited for notability appears to be tied to the product, first and foremost. I looked for some good examples on which to potentially base a rewrite/edit, and found a few. Looking through WP:GA this article seems like a comparable BLP in terms of subject matter: Asher Vollmer. Most of his secondary sources are related to the product, not the person, as far as I can tell. Most board game designer pages I can find also follow this structure. His citations come from many of the same and similar secondary sources of this article: example Board Game Geek, Game Zone, Polygon, The Verge. Autoshotdc (talk) 20:06, 6 August 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 01:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Fearnley[edit]

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

Non-notable artist, sources I find are largely auction sales or listings. No other sourcing found. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United Kingdom. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can only find verification for his date and place of birth and school. Running a WP:BEFORE I can see he exists and sells prints of cars and trains painted in a certain style. The references are mostly promotional or native advertising. I don't think he rises to WP:ARTIST. The books, though, make me wonder if he is a notable illustrator. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source in a car magazine artist Alan Fearnley describes in detail. Automobile quarterly by Princeton Institute for Historic Research.

On this page link, clicking on Alan Fearnley's name in the left column shows the rest of the page.--Товболатов (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found another source in an American bulletin mentions Alan Fearnley The Railway paintings of Alan Fearnley - National railway bulletin by National Railway Historical Society, 1988. page 43.

End quote:

Despite the fact that this book is expensive for its size, it nevertheless serves to highlight and celebrate the work of one of Britain's finest masters. Artists are railroad workers whose work must be universally recognized.

--Товболатов (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources above are good. I've also found 500 words, only 1 sentence of which is a quote, on ProQuest [1]. Here's another likley source that I don't have full acess to [2]. We have WP:GNG here, so do not need WP:ARTIST, but that may be met as well. —siro χ o 07:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks siroχo, there is also a mention of the artist in two sources Railway World Railway World by G.M.Kichenside Publication date 1978-04-01. SETTLE - CARLISLE RAILWAY DIRECTORY OF RESOURCES by Nigel Musset. Publication date 2016. Товболатов (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Siroxo The 2 sources you provided are behind a paywall, so I will skip voting on this one. Royal88888 (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability. Regarding WP:ARTIST (taken from my comment here), Per WP:NBIO, "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below [such as WP:ARTIST in our case]."

In reference to various additional occupation-specific criteria, such as WP:ARTIST, the policy also states, "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."

Thus, even if the subject does not the meet WP:ARTIST standards, this alone is not valid reason for deletion, if WP:NBASIC is still met. I believe it is, as significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists. Here is a source assessment table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
Automobile quarterly	Story is written by an independent entity.	Source appears to be an authoritative source with standards.	An entire article is focused on the subject.	✔ Yes
National Railway Bulletin	Written by a third-party.	NRHS is reliable.	An entire chapter/section is dedicated to Alan Fearnley.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 01:45, 6 August 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. Bald assertions that GNG is met are undercut by the threadbare nature of sources presented in this discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Iwai[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With 20 goals in 34 appearances, Iwai is Vanuatu's top scorer by a clear margin: Vanuatu national football team#Top goalscorers. I didn't find any SIGCOV through a web search. Maybe newspaper archives would yield more? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Vanuatu Daily Post seems to have an article that looks like potential SIGCOV (he's featured in the title and is mentioned six times in the text), but its in a language that Google Translate does not allow: [3]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11, Krio can translate some amount of Bislama, and a lot of it is cognate enough with English vernacular to at least figure whether someone is being talked about or is doing the talking. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per source found by BeaniFan, clearly nsigjnficiant figure in Vanuatu football, Vanuatu all-time top scorer by a large margin, defintiyle has more offline sources as well. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: seems like it needs more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet GNG. The VDP source above is entirely relaying statements Iwai made, just without quotation marks (AFAICT, "talem" ("tell them") basically means "say" and precedes anything more specific that implies "saying" something to someone else, like "thanking" or "encouraging"). There is no secondary coverage.

Here's my rough translation: Newcomer iCount Yatel FC coach Richard Iwai is happy with the win over Penama FC last Saturday.

Coach Iwai said that he was happy with the newcomer club's first win after a long holiday break and thanked the boys for the performance they put out too.

Iwai was glad to see they got three points in the standings. He said he was happy (he could put?) 2 U-17 players in last weekend's match and pleased with their performance.

Iwai thanked Penama for giving them a good challenge and encourages Penama to continue to work hard in the next (upcoming) matches.

iCount Yatel FC [...] and coach Iwai is appealing to all supporters to come support the team in the club's 2022-2023 championship campaign.

Penama FC coach Colin Brown has said [...(rest of article)]. JoelleJay (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, I can't find any significant coverage online. There is a WP:SPS that indicates he is one of the best ever footballers from Vanuatu, but I can't see how this article can satisfy the GNG. Perhaps create a redict to Vanuatu national football team? Jogurney (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep asses GNG with new references.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which new references? Could you share them? Jogurney (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly a very significant figure in football in Vanuatu. Bar for significant coverage has to be lower considering how low-publicized Vanuatu is; however, the sources that I could find seem to meet the threshold for me, notably including many articles when he was a coach (1 among others). Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The bar for SIGCOV absolutely should not be lower just because a subject is from a low-population country. We wouldn't relax SIGCOV for a subject from a 300k-person city in Siberia compared to one from a city of 1.5 million in the Urals, why would we do so for tiny island nations? And the article you linked has literally zero coverage of Iwai. This is it in its entirety:
Vanuatu football coach Richard Iwai says the Friendship Cup was a welcome hit-out for his players ahead of next month's Pacific Games in Port Moresby, which doubles as an Olympic qualifier.
The hosts won this week's inaugural tournament in Port Vila, finishing undefeated from matches against Under 23 teams from Fiji, Solomon Islands and New Caledonia.
Richard Iwai says his squad have only been able to train together for the past month, after Cyclone Pam disrupted their preparations.
He will name his final squad to travel to Papua New Guinea tomorrow and says it will contain a mix of players.
"Some of the players who didn't play in the Friendship Cup I will put them in the squad. Some of my players too were not there because they had a problem with their jobs or it was hard to release them - I still have six players still missing. Some of them I am happy with them and some of them still no."
Richard Iwai says while his players want to win gold in PNG, their main target is qualifying for Brazil.
Every single mention of Iwai is quoting him. That does not count toward SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 18:22, 4 August 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. I'm persuaded both by the number of editors advocating Deletion and their arguments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Pearl Davis[edit]

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

Non-notable Scaleshombre (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, Internet, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hindustan Times is fine. this in the Evening Standard [4] via Yahoo, ES is semi-reliable source, so meh. We'd need one more good source. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has gained more recognition as an internet personality within the last 12 months [5] NinjaWeeb (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete* why does she have a page when there are more notable people in every field she participates in that lack one? 2607:FB91:1A40:5155:30F5:BE01:AED8:FC2F (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quickly looking over the sources, the cited coverage from News.com.au, Insider, Evening Standard, Hindustan Times and Jerusalem Post all seem to satisfy WP:GNG. The prose could definitely be beefed up significantly, but as long as there's enough info for a proper article I don't see a reason to delete. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All that coverage is really for one event, so I think she fails People_notable_for_only_one_event --FeldBum (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They've made Jewish Chronicle today[6] for singing songs on Youtube. Attention seeking for notoriety? EhsanQ ^(talk) 16:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as she's only notable for this one song/viral moment. --FeldBum (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The articles has plenty of mainstream sources to demonstrates notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To her credit she knows that putting out anti-semitic content gets her coverage and she gets notoriety. I guess by the strict letter of the law, the page deserves to stay but it should accurately reflect who she is. This isn't some game she's playing - she's playing with fire here and if anyone comes here, it should be clear to them that she's an anti-semitic troll. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. This brief bursts of coverage she is getting from the last few weeks is not enough to pass GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with comment There is some level of sourcing that helps notoriety and notability. The cited coverage is satisfactory, but it has not been a sustained level of notability and is more so for recent events. I feel that given some more time, the article could meet notability standards much more easily but unfortunately with how quickly the page was made and how quickly it was nominated for deletion, I'm not sure it will have time to meet those standards. Give the article some more time to be developed before deciding to delete is my opinion. Mannytool (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Major YouTubers (such as Deji, Austin McBroom, McJuggerNuggets, etc.) don’t even have pages yet. The rules for internet celebs are a bit unfair (since mainstream media rarely covers them), but she only got big late last year and isn’t a household name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:B80:7EC0:DD15:6A7:8B94:5A4F (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appearing increasingly in the mainstream media. Robert Brockway (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete This is an easy call. You have to do more that post a bunch of attention-seeking videos online to meeet WP:Notability standards. While she has a niche following, the only significant WP:RS coverage has been of her missteps and retracted offensive commentary. This doesn’t make her notable or worthy of a Wikipedia article. She may someday achieve the type of long-term notoriety required for an article, but just having a YouTube following doesn’t qualify and there are clear rules about these types of “celebrity” YouTubers that she does not meet. I vote to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable social media "influencer". I was just looking for stuff to expand the article, and there ain't a lot out there. Even her attention-seeking outbursts garner little coverage. This is Paul (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - lacking in adequate coverage atm, but I think that at the current rate of things, she may garner enough coverage to warrant an article in the future; I mean, she just got on Piers Morgan's show. — Knightoftheswords 01:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The article can be expanded/improved upon later on just because she's not relevant now doesn't mean she won't be relevant later down the line. Rager7 (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify. The subject appears to have largely drawn the attention of unreliable and tabloid journalism. A large number of the sources also seem focused on the comparison to Andrew Tate and her song, which seems like a WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS situation. I think more time is needed to determine if coverage is WP:SUSTAINED. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Seems unlikely coverage would be sustained, unless she does something else dumb that attracts the attention of the tabloid media. This is Paul (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: This is Paul (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

@This is Paul: please do not !vote twice. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I thought because it had been relisted then it was a new discussion. Feel free to delete this thread. This is Paul (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is (Personal attack removed). This is (Personal attack removed) who actively attacks the rights of women. Does every (Personal attack removed) get a page now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C4A:7E7F:FDB4:61AF:11E:A509:FBFF (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Connor Behan (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most comments indicate she is not well-known even on socials. The song that put her into the public light was engagement bait. Unless she has any other notoriety, deletion seems fair.TRE (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FIFTEENMINUTES. Not everyone who utters hate speech on the internet is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and there is no reliable coverage of anything else this person has done in their entire life. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:51, 2 August 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 Trinidad and Tobago women's national football team. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shenieka Paul[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least one cap for the Trinidad and Tobago women's national football team as per GSA. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Trinidad and Tobago. JTtheOG (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:TOOSOON. Can't find any indication of activity since 2018, when Paul was mostly competing in U20 competitions aside from the few senior caps. Lots of coverage as a secondary school player in 2016 but none satisfying WP:NSPORT, much less GNG. -Socccc (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, is there a good redirect target article here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any appropriate redirect target currently as List of Trinidad and Tobago women's international footballers does not exist. Best sources found were Wired868 and Newsday but neither of these address Paul in detail. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trinidad and Tobago women's national football team to save page history. Suitskvarts (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he does not have too much coverage. Royal88888 (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royal88888, the article subject is a "she". Did you review the article before casting your vote? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aneel Murarka[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this meets WP:GNG and a WP:BEFORE didn't turn up much. Someone more familiar with Indian news and corporations might be able to find something. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per quick sources check:

1,2,12,14,18 — error 404
7,15,16,18 — other access errors (maybe for me)
3,4,5,6,11,13 — laudatory articles with no byline
8 — the same text from 6
9 — this domain is for sale
10 — he didn't mentioned
17 — the first article with a byline, but it's a trivial mention

I haven't made an attempt to find reliable sources myself, but I suppose if he even suddenly has notability, the article should be rewritten using better materials. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic Americans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, largely WP:UNSOURCED WP:CROSSCAT of language family – Slavic languages – and a couple of hand-picked nationalities and ethnicities which are overgeneralised to be all "Slavic", but that just isn't correct. Even if we discount the millions of non-Slavic people living in each of these countries (Germans, Turks, Albanians, Hungarians, Romanians, Romani, Aromanians, Italians, Balts, Finno-Ugric, Turkic and Mongolic folks etc. etc. etc.), lots of people are from mixed marriages/backgrounds. A group like Texan Silesians has a significant German influence. We can't just ignore that and lump them all together as if they are all entirely 100% "Slavic". They're not.

The adjoining map File:Slavic ancestry in the USA and Canada.png is also based on original research from incompatible aggregated data from 1990 and 2016, whereby it is unclear how calculations have even been made (one link is dead, the other doesn't directly show the data, so any fact-checker needs to dig up all the data themselves), let alone whether they are correct. Per c:Commons:Evidence-based mapping#English Wikipedia precedents, B. Maps that synthesise data from multiple sources in order to reach a conclusion not found in any source, or bring together data from multiple sources that are not compatible (e.g. population data in which children were only included in some sources), commit en:WP:SYNTH. Therefore, such maps may be removed from English Wikipedia, and any templates which embed such maps may be deleted.

We just can't mix up language family and nationality/ethnicity like this. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries for a long list of precedents. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and United States of America. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with the nom on the OR/WP:SYN aspect, also it's entirely unclear what the article is supposed to be (a list, or an actual article with no prose in it yet?) but it also seems to violate WP:NOTSTATS in its current form. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another ill-conceived WP:SYNTH combination of language family and anything else. No nontrivial prose content. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This is a plausible search term, so disambiguation might be appropriate. Note to the nominator - don't forget about similar "Baltic <topic>" crosscats. –Vipz (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vipz That is a good point. Baltic Americans was turned into a disambiguation page (DP) back in 2009. It had contents similar to this page before then. We might turn it into disambiguation page instead? But it will still remain arbitrary, just like Baltic Americans says Estonian Americans (depending on definition); Finnish Americans (depending on definition). Personally, I have never seen anyone defining the Finns as "Baltic". Even the Estonians are a bit arbitrary because most Estonians speak, well, the Estonian language or Russian language, neither of which is "Baltic". The only reason to call Estonians "Baltic" is because of the common term Baltic states that Estonia is usually lumped in with (often at their own discontent).
So a reason to oppose turning it into a DP is that we will end up with the same (depending on definition) stuff, like Macedonian Americans (depending on definition). Even c. 25% of inhabitants of North Macedonia are ethnic Albanians (Albanians in North Macedonia), apparently they don't count: Macedonian Americans (Macedonian: Македонски Американци, romanized: Makedonski Amerikanci) are Americans of ethnic [[Macedonians (ethnic group)|Macedonian]] heritage. On the other hand, Category:Macedonian American's parent Category:Macedonian diaspora is in:
- Category:Ethnic Macedonian people, part of the ethnicity-based Category:People by ethnicity tree;
- Category:Diasporas by country of origin, part of the country-based Category:People by country tree;
- Category:Macedonian people, part of the nationality-based Category:People by nationality tree.
So what are we even talking about when we say "Macedonian Americans"? Macedonians by ethnicity, Macedonians by (previous) residence, or Macedonians by nationality? Well, that is (depending on definition). Only "ethnic Macedonian Americans" could arguably be called "Slavic Americans", and even that is an oversimplification. Turning this article into a DP won't solve the WP:CROSSCAT WP:OR/WP:SYNTH problems. We could equally create a DP for Germanic Americans and then populate it with lots of pages ranging Icelandic Americans to Luxembourgish Americans, but I would find that an equally bad idea. Because the language family that the native languages of most speakers in a given country belong to is just WP:NONDEFINING and WP:TRIVIAL, as the "Turkic", "Germanic", "Celtic" and even some earlier "Slavic" precedents show. (E.g. we would have to ignore that c. 16% of Luxembourgers have Portuguese as their native language these days. Should we discount every single Portuguese Luxembourger and keep claiming all Luxembourgers are "Germanic" just to maintain this bad generalisation? No.). A better idea might be to also Delete Baltic Americans rather than to follow its example. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The map including both Canada and the US is at odds with the text that seems to be US-only. At best, listify at something like list of Americans of Slavic origin and remove the excess WP:SYNTH. There's probably scholarly works that cover the topic, but this hodgepodge of statistics deserves some form of WP:TNT as is. (This reminds me of various excessive bilateral relations and lists of airports articles - some potential as taken way too far by overzealous editors.) --Joy (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though a disambiguation could be entertained, but this looks WP:OR. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation. Make a simple list like Baltic Americans. Suitskvarts (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Girls, Girls, Girls Tour[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NTOUR, as well as relying excessively on primary sources since article was tagged five years ago.

I am also nominating the following related article for also failing notability:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Music. HorrorLover555 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both tours fail both WP:GNG and WP:NTOUR. Aspects (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I first thought the pages could be merged with the album or band, but there doesn't seem to be any valuable information here. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As this was in 1987 it would be hard to find much coverage, but I would imagine that at the time it probably had some descent coverage as they were one of the biggest metal bands of the times. I have managed to find some coverage in Google Books. Check 1, 2. I also found some further coverage in Google Newspapers Archive 3, 4. Royal88888 (talk) 01:22, 6 August 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nicole Smith: You Don't Know Me[edit]

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

Non-notable Netflix documentary. Fails WP:NFILM. QuestFour (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, seems to be a snowball. QuestFour (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QuestFour (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film has been reviewed by numerous major publications. The ones currently cited in the article are from Variety, The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Guardian, and Time Magazine. Clearly the film meets notability guidelines with such coverage. Thriley (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-sourced stub with plenty of room for expansion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple sigcov in-depth secondary reviews in WP:RS. ResonantDis_tortion 11:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to nominator: @QuestFour:Would you consider withdrawing your nomination? A Snowball Keep seems more than likely.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kepz[edit]

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

This seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. This musician does not seem to meet the general notability criteria at this stage, as he is only covered in one reliable secondary source. He also doesn't meet any of the specific criteria in WP:PRODUCER. He may well get to this point in future, but he's not there yet. (I note also that I've done WP:BEFORE searches under Kepa Tumai, Kepz and Keps, since the NZ Herald article seems to use the latter spelling, and haven't found anything further.) Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and New Zealand. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. Not 100% sure of the correct process in this instance, but the article creator has agreed that the article is not ready for mainspace and we have moved it to draftspace so they can work on it some more. If I should do something different other than withdraw, let me know! Chocmilk03 (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I now suggest this article be draftified rather than deleted, per discussion on the talk page with the page creator. Apologies again for my confusion about process on this one. Chocmilk03 (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As original author of this article, I confirm the suggestion for this article to be dratified rather than deleted as this is article has been established as still a work in progress that can be worked with fellow wikipedia editors outside the scope of it being public facing. Samirnz (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. as requested above.Royal88888 (talk) 00:14, 6 August 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 Panama women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arianys Argüelles[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Panama women's international footballers. The subject has made at least one appearance for the Panama women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Panama. JTtheOG (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' as above. Giant Snowman 20:40, 31 July 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 Malta women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oriana Bedingfield[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Malta women's international footballers. The subject made one appearance for the Malta women's national football team in 2011. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Malta. JTtheOG (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' as above. Giant Snowman 20:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Although perhaps, given 2011, it's a bit of a soft decision. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:43, 5 August 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!} 21:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Bowcott[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. No claim to notability is apparent even in past versions. JFHJr (㊟) 21:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, England, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find coverage online, and can't find any WP:SIGCOV after a cursory look through newspapers.com. ARandomName123 (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - found no refs. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do a lot better than this. Although Edmonton is a large and prominent enough city that its city councillors have traditionally been accepted as notable under NPOL #2, that still depends on being able to properly source some actual content about their political careers (specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their time in office had on the development of the city, etc.) — we would likely keep a well-written and well-sourced article about an Edmonton city councillor, but there's little to no value in holding on to a three-line stub that barely goes any further than "he existed" and is referenced solely to his obituary. If somebody in Edmonton has enough access to the historic resources needed to write and source something with some substance to it, go for it, but that's not what this is. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't find anything either. Suitskvarts (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TV5 Užice[edit]

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

article only has a single self-primary source. Fails GNG beyond citing itself as source. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BROADCAST as an non-notable TV network with extremely localized coverage. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Max Media Business[edit]

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

The article says it all: "a small local business building"; "currently under construction". Emeraude (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Architecture, Organizations, Business, Companies, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. — Karnataka ^talk 20:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close – no reason given for deletion. Thincat (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely not notable. Local planning dispute. Mccapra (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No trace of notability. P.S. "Public toilet" purpose mention just made my day. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:56, 5 August 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 Battlestar Galactica characters#Original 1978 movie and series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Apollo[edit]

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

The article is currently unsourced, and I have been unable to find any reliable sources about this character. Therefore, the character fails GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tor retrospective after Hatch's death seems to contain enough RS commentary to count as one, which is more than nominator found, which suggests that there are others out there on a more probable than not basis. Given the age and cult status of the original BSG, there are almost certainly dead tree books covering the character, and that the nominator has been unable to find them does not mean they don't exist. Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters#Original_1978_movie_and_series. The source Jclemens found seems good, but GNG requires multiple sources, which I interpret as at least two. We have one. If any other source is found, ping me and I'll reconsider my vote to a likely keep. If not, one source does not, I fear, warrant keeping this as a stand-alone article, but that source should definetly be used in the list (or in the article if kept). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apollo (Battlestar Galactica) Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about it? QuicoleJR (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've turned it into a dab, as that's effectively what it was; I'm not sure it warrants an article... Josh Milburn (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or selective merge, per Piotrus. Character has some WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs that we can WP:PRESERVE, even if it does not have enough to qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:59, 3 August 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. ^Complex/_Rational 19:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dove Dance School[edit]

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

No citations, pushed straight to mainspace, nowhere close to WP:NSCHOOL BrigadierG (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Education, Schools, Christianity, Florida, and Oklahoma. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has been in Wikipedia for almost two years, but I don't see that there have been any attempts to source it, much less to provide significant coverage from independent reliable sources per WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful not to fall afoul of WP:NOEFFORT BrigadierG (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article for local business. Mccapra (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page has 0 sources and I couldn't find any reliable sources for the school for notability.CourtseyDriver (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found one measly source https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/1998/05/02/group-worships-with-dance/62282994007/ but I have low confidence about this place mweeting GNG. Graywalls (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails NSCHOOL and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a typical promotional page for another non-notable school. Suitskvarts (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on others' ref searches.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elvish Yadav[edit]

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

Elvish Yadav is failing WP:GNG and WP:NYOUTUBER. All the news references are about the show Bigg Boss show where he is now a contestant and about the controvercy on the show. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and India. Karnataka (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This notable article proves –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹 𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞 05:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the news reference are written by news desk, there no journalist name. So those news are not independent. And the news reference which is written by journalist that news agency is not reliable. Hence not falling under GNG. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When did you check that the news is not independent? See the article once again, I have also corrected it. –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹 𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞 07:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Filmibeat is not reliable source, Statesmen is reliable but not written by journalist, India Today is reliable source but not written by journalist, Rediff is good but not in-depth coverage, The Print is not reliable source, Republic World is not reliable source. I'd like to refer you WP:ICTFSOURCES to know which is reliable and which is not. Also I would like to refer you to read WP:GNG and recheck those references again. Thanks Nomadwikiholic (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you have already started the discussion, now only experienced editors will take this discussion. –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹 𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞 09:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: definitely case of WP:TOOSOON, no WP:GNG, No WP:RS QueerEcofeminist🌈 03:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 12:09, 3 August 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. ^Complex/_Rational 19:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ines de Ramon[edit]

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

Non-notable coverage per WP:BLP; not in-depth, celebrity gossip sources, notability is not inherited by who a person is married to or dates. BilCat (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything that isn't about her relationship to Brad Pitt in recent news - because there's just so much of it. Refining a search to before 2021 just gets hits about her relationship with her previous famous boyfriend. Setting the range back to before that relationship started, I found nothing at all. If anyone manages to find notable coverage in the deluge of celebrity gossip pieces, feel free to ping me for a reconsider. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. I'll be continuing to watch the discussions here to see if notable coverage is discovered. BilCat (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Asilvering exactly. If there is any coverage that isn't based on her being a specific movie star's girlfriend, I will be happy to change my mind, but this seems to be a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. We bend that rule/essay for First Ladies, etc., but (a) Brad Pitt is not the President, and (b) girlfriend is generally not a lifetime status. --GRuban (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have similarly failed to find evidence of her own importance. Suitskvarts (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is consensus that the topic is notable, and there is no consensus that the promotionalism issues are serious enough to warrant deletion; I would certainly not consider it eligible for G11 speedy deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EssentiallySports[edit]

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

This article is mainly sourced with brand posts, press releases, so it clearly fails WP:NCORP. Mercenf (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Sports, Websites, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bizcruft soucing. This is about the best I find [7]. Appears paid promo article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The website appears to have significant reach and influence, with 30 million monthly readers across 150 countries, according to the information provided. This statistic suggests that it has considerable notability within the sports journalism world. Also, the site claim to produce original content such as the 'Quarentennis - Bridging the Broken Strings' podcast, suggesting that it plays a role not only in disseminating but also in creating sports news and analysis. LusikSnusik (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per quite significant site's audience. Also, there is a minimum sourcing needed to establish the website's notability (although some of the sources may not be of high quality). The site also received a notable award from the Indian news site Afaqs, for best sports coverage or something similar. [8]. Could be added to the page's credibility. --BoraVoro (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep with over 1 billion views this independent sports media also ranks among top sports sites worldwide per Feedspot. It's also listed among the top 30 blogs in the world per https://detailed.com/50. IMO, looks pretty notable and interesting mix of fan-generated community and classic sports broadcasting. 多少战场龙 (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandra Bolchini[edit]

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

This article contains three sources. Two sources contain significant coverage, but I believe they may be primary sources (Calci Femminile Italiano). Further, the sources merely state she joined the team, then had an injury. The other is a sports profile with her stats (not significant coverage). A quick Google search did not prompt better sources, though they may be available in Italian. Significa liberdade (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. The routine news pieces are not significant. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis and my BEFORE search of Italian-language sources. Jogurney (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak of June 12, 2023[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable tornado outbreak which occurred in the Midwest, and it was created by a new user after its draft was previously redirected due to lack of notability. It is poorly formatted, with only one section of prose that was copied from Tornadoes of 2023, and the article goes against the criteria for an outbreak article per the WikiProject's guidelines. ChrisWx (talk - contribs) 16:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska. ChrisWx (talk - contribs) 16:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it should be deleted. The reason why is because of there being no sources to use for the event. Also the copied information could have been revised or not used. E Tornadoesandcats15 (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per all reasons provided in the nomination. United States Man (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – An article is unnecessary, and the date is wrong anyway. ChessEric 02:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nomination reasons. Also, creator was blocked indefinately for disruptive editing. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merging doesn't make much sense here. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flaunt[edit]

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

Other than lawsuit related coverage, there is nothing significant about this magazine. Fails WP:GNG. Mercenf (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Bokyun Chun[edit]

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

minimum notability, lack of citations despite 3 year old notability tag 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 30 July 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 a side of IAR. We have a consensus to delete based on notability and a deadnamed article that is causing stress to a BLP. This does not need to run longer. Star Mississippi 00:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Parsons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a biography of a living person who requested the article be deleted (Wikipedia:Help desk#Delete Taylor Parsons page please). The subject appears to be only barely notable and quite probably not notable at all (see comments on the talk page), and there was a previous discussion about deletion. The subject has transitioned and does not wish her current name - which is now the title of the article - to be associated with the name she was possibly notable under. WP:BIODELETE suggests that a request for deletion from a relatively unknown subject of a BLP should be respected. There must be many sportspeople who are equally notable who do not have Wikipedia pages. The entry is categorised as "Low importance" on the projects Australia and Climbing. I vote to delete Lijil (talk) 14:28, 30 July 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 July 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also vote to delete. Taylorppp3 (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Taylorppp3 has said that they represent the BLP subject on the article talk page, and that they would like to have the article deleted (hence the WP:BIODELETE in the nom). If the article is not deleted, then MOS:GENDERID applies (as the subject's notability was under their previous deadname of Chris Webb), which the subject would rather not be preserved. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like there's a consensus to delete - but if it were to be kept, maybe it could be renamed back to the deadname and not mention the person's current name. Lijil (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIODELETE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per request. This is a BLP.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions and has been listed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 20:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons well articulated above. CT55555(talk) 22:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is borderline and WP:BIODELETE applies, note also that they are mentioned in other articles using their dead name. Theroadislong (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For clarity, though this AfD is listed as the 2nd nomination, there was no previous AfD that I can find (either related to Taylor Parsons or the article pre-move under Parsons' birth name). There was a BLP prod in 2021, which was removed as it did not meet the BLP prod criteria. All that being said, while Parsons may technically be marginally notable, she is not particularly well-known and deleting her article under WP:BIODELETE seems reasonable. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the person who nominated, and I may have misunderstood the BLP prod - I thought that meant it had been nominated for deletion previously. Thanks for clarifying. Lijil (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isiac McAllister[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, every single purported source here is a fake with the exception of this roseandquesenberry.net obit. The links in the article are mostly WP:EASTEREGGs or not verifiable to McAllister. In searching for "Isiac McAllister", "Samuel Isiac McAllister", "Samuel McAllister", and " Isiaac Squared" (the purported band), it is evident it is not close to WP:GNG or the musician notability standard. The band does exist, but it has performed at a very local level, like a local pub (Charlie's Pub in Fayetteville WV). Mvqr (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and West Virginia. Mvqr (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and the arguments stated in the nomination. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 15:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and note about potential promotional editing. Unable to find the article subject's date of birth openly published and it is not in the cited source. It's a common basic information that is often provided to article authors by third party. The kind of false sources are a rather common public relations editing tactic. Graywalls (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like the creator might have tried to post fake sources, such as the last one with the title ""Isiac McAllister Admitted to Hospital Following Collapsed Lung" that only links to CBS.com and when you search Google nothing comes up about it.Naomijeans (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I must admit that the fakery in this article is rather impressive, especially the blue links that go to irrelevant WP locations and the references containing titles of news articles that don't exist. He did not make the Billboard chart and was not profiled in that magazine, he did not collaborate with Reba, and those are only a few of the hoaxes in this article. If only this much energy could be put into getting the kid a gig. Also, sorry about the collapsed lung and all, but I've been in the hospital a few times too and that doesn't get me a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Treehouse Trolls Birthday Day[edit]

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

Seems to be a children's film which went straight to video. I can't see how it meets WP:NF, interested to see if others can make a good case for inclusion JMWt (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but database entries, YouTube, IMDb, and non-notable lists of videotapes for sale. No discussion in secondary sources that I can find. Clearly non-notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no clear evidence of coverage in secondary sources and as noted above, what there is seems limited to db-like listings. I'd also throw the almost identical Treehouse Trolls Forest of Fun and Wonder into the mix as well for deletion consideration. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I have not been able to find anything beyond aforementioned. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angi Cipra[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NGYMNAST or WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Arizona, and California. Let'srun (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although several sources are cited, they are merely passing mentions (e.g., a list of UCLA team members or general meet results) and/or primary sources. A quick Google search did not show any better sources. Significa liberdade (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Damyanov (footballer)[edit]

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

I was not able to find any evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I, instead, found hits about namesakes in basketball and judo. The only coverage that I found for this footballer in Bulgarian searches was weak; a passing mention in Blitz and two mentions in TV Shumen, a match report. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a Bulgarian version of the article, but it adds nothing of value. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ delete. There is a clear majority for deletion, but the main issues are the current state of the article (i.e. ensuring that the article is encyclopedic) and the sourcing. In both these areas I find that the "delete" side has made a stronger argument even though good faith arguments to the contrary have also been made.

In its current state, the article does look largely like a resumé, including a large section with a list of published papers, and otherwise a rundown of Rajan's career and education. This kind of content may be relevant in an encyclopedia article as well, but there is very little in the way of external coverage or discussion of his work. This is the primary concern that Siroxo made early in the discussion.

The article has been defended, by arguing that Rajan is a "fellow of several prestigious academic societies", but it appears that the defense comes up short when it comes to verifying this claim. The Arab Times is frequently mentioned in the discussion, but looking at how this source has been used in the article, Dr. Rajan is mentioned but not the subject of the article.

In sum, the delete side have made convincing arguments concerning the unencyclopedic nature of the current article, as well as a lack of secondary sourcing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Rajan[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Checking for WP:GNG, I find sources but they are all profile puff pieces that read like press releases. Also, based on this current discussion, I am concerned that these could be promotional articles as they are all similar in tone and all recently published. CNMall41 (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTCV, at best WP:TNT. I don't see any reasonable sources for GNG or WP:BIO. I am very skeptical of this peice, written by "FPJ Web Desk", others are more clearly not independent or passing references. —siro χ o 04:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kuwait and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NACADEMIC.

Rajesh is a fellow of several prestigious academic societies, such as the Royal College of Physicians of London (FRCP), the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland (FRCPI), the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (FRCPE), the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow (FRCPG), the European Society of Cardiology (FESC), the American College of Cardiology (FACC), and the American Heart Association (FAHA). These fellowships are prestigious honors and demonstrate Dr. Rajan's exceptional contributions to the academic community. passes WP:NACADEMIC, C#3.
Dr. Rajan holds the position of Chairman of the Indian Association of Clinical Cardiologists, a prestigious role where he represents the nation's clinical cardiologists in their interactions with the federal government. Additionally, he holds membership in the Indian Advisory Board of the American College of Cardiology, and he serves as the Managing Editor of the Annals of Clinical Cardiology. He is also the President of the Association of Indian Alumni of RUDN University as well as the Association of MD Physicians. passes WP:NACADEMIC Criterion 6.
Dr. Rajan has a considerable number of research papers that are featured on platforms such as Google Scholar, Research Gate, and the world's largest library, National Library of Medicine.
He invented the Rajan's Heart Failure (R-hf) Risk Score, a tool that aids in assessing the risk of heart failure and proposed a new classification for single coronary artery (SCA): Rajan's and Kotevski's TYPE-IV (R-IV-C) modified Lipton's classification. It was defined as type-IV quadfurcation of a single coronary artery from the right aortic sinus.
His involvement in providing commentaries on the role of cardiology in current events highlights his expertise and recognition as a leader in the field 1, 2, 3. He was invited to discuss pricing matters by National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority. He participated in the Indo-Soviet Cardiology Research Project of KIMS Hospital and RUDN University.

All these contribute to his notability.VirenRaval89 (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this page I am going to assume you have done more research on the sourcing and would ask that you share the secondary reliable sources associated with the fellowships. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41:The fellowship with the American Heart Association is supported by the reputable Arab Times article . According to ScienceDirect, he is an elected fellow of the American College of Cardiology, link. His membership with the European Society of Cardiology and other academic societies can be verified at the European Society of Cardiology. Also, see ORCID (link), University of Strathclyde (Link).VirenRaval89 (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Arab Times article doesn't say he is a fellow. The Science Direct has a list of recently elected fellows (from more than a decade ago) but is there anywhere to verify this? I see that these are listed in his bio in different locations but anyone can put anything in their bio, it's self-published and not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does accept these sources for academic matters, and they alone provide sufficient evidence that Rajan holds fellowships in various reputable societies. These sources aren't from platforms like LinkedIn, Crunchbase, or IMDb, where information can be easily added by anyone. Instead, these websites undergo strict monitoring and scrutiny to ensure the information they present is accurate. In addition to those sources, I also provided the reputable Arab Times article. This article not only features Rajan but also includes other individuals. If you take a look at the article, you'll notice that it primarily revolves around the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology, where these individuals are quoted or invited to share their insights. The reason for their involvement is twofold: first, they are fellows of these prestigious societies, and second, they are highly respected cardiologists. Here are the links to back up these claims

Prof. Karen Sliwa– Fellow of American College of Cardiology, is verified here and here
Dr. Raja Dashti– FACC, source, source,
Dr Pinto– FACC, source
Rajesh Rajan– FACC, source
Mohammed Al Jarallah– link. VirenRaval89 (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about Rajesh Rajan, not the others so they would have no relevance being included in this discussion. Above I asked about the "reputable Arab Times article" as I cannot find where it verifies his fellowship. Can you please point out where in that article it verifies such? I also asked about the Science Direct article and verification outside that. Are you able to address those concerns? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know the discussion is about Rajesh and not the others. However, I mentioned the other three individuals featured in the Arab Times article to provide further support for my arguments. These individuals were not arbitrarily selected by the publication to share their views; rather, they were included due to their affiliations with these societies (American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology). To validate their affiliations, I provided sources for each individual, allowing for verification of their fellowships.

In addition, i have previously provided multiple academic sources that confirm Rajesh's fellowships in various societies which are credible and widely accepted for academic matters. They are not LinkedIn, CrunchBase, IMDb, or social media websites where anyone can create an account and add information. These academic websites are not publicly editable; their content is solely managed by their respective staff. They undergo strict monitoring and scrutiny to ensure the information they present is accurate.VirenRaval89 (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The AFD nominator is asking User:VirenRaval89 if they could supply some reliable sources to support the claims made in this discussion. Any other editor is welcome to help out as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least #2 seems to be partially supported by Times of India and FreePressJournal, although his position is reportedly president and not chairman. - Indefensible (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment from Siroxo above about the Free Press Journal. There is also this discussion which is relevant to that article. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think even if the sources contain WP:PRIMARY material or are PR they can still be used just to establish the basic fact of whether the subject has that position or not, because a straight and obvious lie could open up the editorial staff of the publisher to some liability risk for misrepresentation or dishonest reporting. - Indefensible (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in the U.S. since laws require that placements such as these are marked as native advertising. However, these publications are not U.S. based so not sure what type of liability would be involved. Regardless, any publication doing this (and many of them have) shouldn't be considered reliable for the purpose of establishing notability on Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we even have a good understanding of the significance of Indian Association of Clinical Cardiologists. It was only founded in 2008, and in large part by the subject of this article. Cardiology has a long history in India, dating from the early/mid 1900s, so I'm having trouble judging the significance of such a new organization in the context of this article subject. It could be an important development or it could be little more than a vanity org, I really can't tell at this time.

This is probably a very different circumstance, but I am slightly concerned about a multi-year "gossip-loop" situation like what's been noted regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laxmaiah Manchikanti occurring. (Hence my earlier note of TNT for this article). Thanks also CNMall41 for that discussion link, very helpful context. —siro χ o 04:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The article mentions a dispute with other cardiology societies which is interesting, the article creator was also blocked for using sockpuppets. Might need further review. - Indefensible (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have a healthy discussion going on which is always a good thing. But we need more editors taking a position, not just on the state of Indian sources, but on their use in this specific article. I'm pushing you to take a stance. I realize being a thoughtful participant in a deletion discussion is a lot of work but it is really up to you what happens with this article. And since they have been editing since the last relist, I'll ping User:VirenRaval89 again to see if they want to respond to the queries here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Indian Association of Cardiologists (from what I understand) reviews the latest medical information and sets clinical practice guidelines for the country. They'd recommend which treatments are effective, which medications to use and for how long, when surgery is indicated etc. I suppose heading this society would imply importance. The various fellowships are more notable I think; I read about the Irish fellowship, you have to be recommended for it by two other people already in the "club" and have to have extensive knowledge and experience in the field. I'm not sure under which notability category he falls, but this individual is obviously a highly educated doctor with extensive clinical practice experience and knowledge. Oaktree b (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the fellowships must be "substantiated through reliable sources." Those do not exist here other than some self-published bios. For the "Irish fellowship" (I believe you are referring to the RCP), it is in no way highly selective. While you stated someone has to be nominated by two others, someone can also self-nominate. It is basically something you pay for, get approval for, and then allowed to use the title. It is the same way a company makes the Inc. 5000 list. Regardless, we simply do not have the sources to definitively say he is a fellow for any society that is highly selective of fellowships. On a side note, he is actually one of the co-founders of the IAC and would think that if his role in "heading this society" was of note there would be more press about it. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does accept academic sources for these matters. I even provided the reputable Arab Times article to verify the fellowship claim. Please take a moment to read my comments above.VirenRaval89 (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Delete - Per fail WP:GNG & WP:NBLP. ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 10:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly delete? Why are there SNG guidelines in place if all subjects must pass GNG? I'm pretty sure you haven't read the comments thoroughly. Please read my new comments where I have provided more evidence.VirenRaval89 (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I am no expert on the professional politics of Indian cardiology, but I cannot help but be skeptical of a notability claim anchored to being the co-founder and chairman of a purportedly major Indian cardiological association that was only established in 2008. And so many of the other superficially impressive credentials fall apart on close inspection (as discussed above) that it doesn't seem prudent to extend any benefit of the doubt. I think we need the full NBASIC here, and I'm not seeing any indication or argument that it is met. -- Visviva (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the reputable Arab Times article to verify the fellowship claim. Please read my new comments where I have provided evidence and additional sources to verify the fellowship claim.VirenRaval89 (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am not sure if you saw my previous comment but the Arab Times does not verify that he is a fellow. Can you point out where in that article it says so? I am unable to locate it. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Editors are still undecided on what should be done with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 12:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw all your previous comments. The Arab Times article I provided above focuses on the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology. Rajesh and the other three individuals mentioned in the article are fellows of these societies, which is why their remarks were included in that article. Please review my earlier and recent comments above (dated 30 July) where I've provided evidence and sources to substantiate these claims.VirenRaval89 (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an assumption. Let me ask directly. Where in that article does it say he is a fellow? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an assumption; it's a fact, and I've already proven it in my previous notes. Let's set aside the Arab Times article for now. What about the other sources I provided earlier ([9][10][11][12][13])? Are you saying the information given in these sources can be manipulated? I've previously mentioned that these sources are accepted by Wikipedia for academic matters. They are not platforms like LinkedIn, Crunch Base, IMDb, or Instagram, where anyone can create an account and add information. These academic websites are not publicly editable; their content is managed solely by their staff. They undergo strict monitoring and scrutiny to ensure the accuracy of the information they present.VirenRaval89 (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not set it aside. You are asserting that the reference says he is a fellow. If it is a fact, I am asking you to point it out. I cannot see anywhere in that reference where it says he is a fellow. Saying so is a proof by assertion. I have already addressed the references you mentioned above in previous comments. They are bios which can be written by anyone. Can you show me from these organization websites where he is listed as a fellow? Assertion is not proof of existence, especially when bios cannot be used to determine notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that as the original creator of this page, these are the best references you have presented so I will assume there is nothing better (I have been unable to find any and previously asked this question to you). I understand your want to !Keep a page you created, but I am not seeing how any of these references show notability in this case. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already addressed the references you mentioned above in previous comments. They are bios which can be written by anyone.

The discussion here is not about who wrote the bios, but rather about the accuracy of the information provided in those bios and the reliability of the platforms hosting this information. Are you saying that these sources ([14][15][16][17]) are not credible because anyone can create an account and add any information they want? As I have repeatedly mentioned, these academic websites are not like platforms such as LinkedIn, Crunch Base, IMDb, or Instagram, where anyone can create an account and add information. These websites (ScienceDirect, European Society of Cardiology, ORCID, University of Strathclyde) are not publicly editable, and their content is managed only by their staff. They undergo rigorous monitoring and scrutiny to ensure the accuracy of the information they provide. They are widely used for academic purposes including by Wikipedia and are considered reliable.

What about this list I shared earlier? It's not even a bio; it explicitly mentions Rajesh as a fellow of the society. Is that list also not credible?VirenRaval89 (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me from these organization websites where he is listed as a fellow?

No universities/colleges in the world display names of their candidates on their websites. Can you show one single university does that?VirenRaval89 (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ultimately I come down here based on the lack of substantial biographical coverage in any source with a reliable byline. It's also a bit concerning that Rajan is listed by Google Scholar as having an h-index of 8; my understanding is that leading research doctors typically have h-indexes in the hundreds (although this could just be an indexing failure). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Astana Challenger – Singles[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV and is likely contrary to WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTSTATS Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable tennis event under WP:NTENNIS. I at least added sourcing to the article. I also disagree with nom's claim that this article violates WP:NOTSTATS. I don't believe a tennis bracket with results only is any different than an Olympics page with 100m sprint times, and I don't believe either violates NOTSTATS. If this article was loaded with match times, ace numbers, winners and double faults, then maybe we'd have a problem. Nom had similar reasoning at an AfD just a couple of months ago on a similar article here. Articles of this sort have been nominated for deletion multiple times before: here, here, and here, and the consensus always seems to be that these articles are notable but the question is whether these articles should be merged under one parent article or left as is. I feel that is best decided in an RfC, not at AfD. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NTENNIS doesn't seem to cover (challenger) tournaments but specifically biographies of singles and doubles players. This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players

Your examples on AFDs concerning the Bucharest and Gelsor tournaments are both AFDs on higher tennis tournaments such as the ATP International series or WTA International tournaments and therefore on higher lever tournaments than one of the challenger series which this one is about.

In your last example in which multiple challenger articles were nominated for deletion the majority voted for either merge or delete with you opposing mentioning there exist numerous sources for those tournaments. But at least to the articles I checked no-one made other than maintenance edits.

Then also in none of those AFDs someone (not even I) argued with WP:SIGCOV or WP:NOTMIRROR. In the AFDs I also found WP:SPORTSEVENT which says:

Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats.

For a game or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clear that a standalone article is warranted. Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page.

This would be directed for at least the doubles and singles articles of the challenger tournaments for which already exist in most of the cases a main article. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge This is a valid split - NOTSTATS doesn't apply as a result - but the Astana Challenger article isn't very long, so this could be validly up-merged. I don't recommend it, but we shouldn't lose this information. SportingFlyer T·C 14:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It (info) must be maintained but it could be merged. The thing is all the other ATP Challengers have split the draws. You can't have this as the only one to be different. The event is certainly notable per project guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not entirely clear if the article should be kept or merged…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 12:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Fyunck(click). Kante4 (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disposable Heroes[edit]

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

just a completely random song. didnt chart or anything, wasnt even a single, it just exists -- FMSky (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, and Music. FMSky (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A couple of low-quality sources in the article, but overall it's well-sourced to reliable publications. The fact that it wasn't a single doesn't seem to have prevented it from being discussed in RS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has multiple articles written specifically about it from reliable publications including Loudwire and Metal Hammer. Just because it wasn't a single or didn't chart doesn't mean it can't have a page.

BoxxyBoy (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on existing news coverage provided in the article. Naomijeans (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has a good amount of information on the song compared to the main Master of Puppets page and contains a good amount of sources. HGP7 (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Kalineyko[edit]

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

Very brief professional career with no indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The only non-database source across all languages of Wikipedia for him is Tribuna, which is a trivial mention. In my own searches in Russian and Belarusian, the best sources found were KP, which doesn't meet the high standards of WP:YOUNGATH, and Football.by, another passing mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to National Liberation Army (Macedonia)#Later developments. ✗plicit 11:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Macedonian police stations bombings[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable, ROTM event. Per WP:EVENT, "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)." This event appears to have had little or no impact at the time, let alone enduring impact since then. The reporting, per the sources cited, is only regional, and took place immediately following the event, strongly suggesting no historical significance or lasting effect. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and North Macedonia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into National Liberation Army (Macedonia)#Later developments, which has a list of other minor attacks committed by the group at around the same time. --Dynamo128 (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with National Liberation Army (Macedonia)#Later developments: Minor incidents such as this are recorded there 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Mosque Al-Kauser[edit]

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

Page seems to have been created for a mosque in Hyderabad - there are no sources about the Hyderabad mosque. The two sources are about a mosque of the same name in Malaysia. AmateurHi$torian (talk) 11:04, 23 July 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 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I suspect this needs WP:TNT until someone can verify the details. There seems to be a level of confusion on the page (would we expect a Malay name for a mosque in Hyderabad?) - and searching brings up various mosques in the city with similar names. Generally I'd think that a large religious building would have sources to show notability but I can't find them. Maybe the exist, maybe this is a hoax. So I think we need to delete until someone does the prerequisite work to show that they exist and that the subject is notable. JMWt (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Koh-e-qaim[edit]

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

article does not cite any sources, couldn't find any. It doesn't appear to be any notable mosque AmateurHi$torian (talk) 10:29, 23 July 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 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Engines and energy conversion laboratory[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2020/10 (see page history). Only source is their website, and I found no coverage online that meets WP:SIRS ARandomName123 (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Colorado. ARandomName123 (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly enough I can't find anything truly independent despite reams of coverage, probably doesn't meet WP:ORG. Merge into a subsection of Colorado State University. That article already mentions it a few times. —siro χ o 07:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable: I found 3 journal refs - they were the first 3 Google Scholar hits using the link above. I've added them to the article. One of them is about the director but then it goes on to describe all that are happening at the lab. The other two are about the lab. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Times, again via the link above:
- Witkin, Jim (16 December 2011). "Aspirations in Colorado to Be a New Motor City". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 July 2023.
A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As far as I can tell, the sources found by A. B. are good enough for WP:NCOPR (also re. strict independence) and WP:GNG, so I don't see a lack of notability as a good reason for deletion. Given the impact of their research, I think it's fair to assume that there's also going to be some [[WP:NEXIST|sources we don't have access to]. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. WP:GNG requires that the topic of an article have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of that subject: and any source that counts toward such coverage needs to meet all those criteria, per WP:SIGCOV. This is a fairly basic application of notability policy, so I'm not sure why it's being challenged the way it is in this discussion. As such, there's clear consensus that notability is not currently demonstrated. Like the final relister, I see a clear consensus to delete; unlike said admin, I'm unwilling to draftify unless someone explicitly commits to working on a draft, which I haven't yet seen, but I would willingly provide a copy to someone who does so. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Pence[edit]

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

Unclear notability for this individual. Was mentioned at Just For Laughs in 2004 as a person to watch, but nothing of note since then. Gsearch is straight to social media, few if any critical discussions of the person or his work. Oaktree b (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

A very clear Keep. Mr. Pence is a verifiably noted broadcaster, podcaster, filmmaker, and comedian. Mattwatterworth (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as author. As to the two points made 1. That there is "nothing since" is plainly untrue just by reading the article. 2. Google does not return all sources nor is "critical discussion" a prerequisite for notability. The article is brand new: you have to give people some chance to see it and improve. There are already enough cited secondary sources to show this is not a trivial person. He has had a daily international audience in the thousands for over 5 years; small, but hardly insignificant enough to delete immediately. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need notability when the article is created, we can't park it until something happens. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think GNG is clearly met *now*, by the numerous secondary sources listed. Is true the aren't a mountain of results when you Google, but that's not the standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:162C:E437:AD2:2951:6721:CE8F (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't see any we can use, can you share some for the group? Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are many online citations in the article to independent reliable sources with significant focus on the target. I think you need to refamiliarize yourself with GNG, as you are hewing too close to the letter and not the spirit of notability. This is objectively a notable person, and the article is not being used as a form of self-promotion. It is important to use AfD to prevent WP from being used for nefarious, non-encyclopedic purposes. This is very clearly not the case here. WP is better served by the article's inclusion than its deletion. Further there is not a good target for merging. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page has 13 references/citations. Why is it still being considered for deletion? Mattwatterworth (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20 now. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where you at @Oaktree b? Mattwatterworth (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here. I've not reviewed the dozen sources you've added; if time allows, I'll review later. Oaktree b (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie is a great comedian and podcaster and deserves a Wiki page!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radckh (talk • contribs) 01:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that there are some comments on the talk page that belong on this page. It seems a little strange that four people should independently comment there rather than here, when that very rarely happens. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's got a twitter account? Valereee (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GreatCaesarsGhost, for ease of assessment by other editors, which three sources, please no more, do you believe show notability? Valereee (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to once again ask for some citation of actual policy I can respond to. There is no 3 source rule; in fact a higher volume of diverse sources is a greater measure of notability. I could point to three sources, and one could say "this one is less reliable, this one is less independent, this one is more indirect coverage" but this ignores the baseline notion that any deficiencies in one source can be compensated for with another. These sources also serve to endorse the WP:ENT qualifier for making "prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" in this case podcasting. The target has appeared on several thousand episodes of many different highly visible programs, and I don't believe any one source exists that would tend to cover this kind of contribution. I simply fail to understand what possible purpose exists in AfDing a 10 hour old article with double digits references spanning more than a decade. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of references is far more important than quantity. Phil Bridger (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely true. But its not just quantity I'm pointing to, it's a diversity of sources and sustained mentions over a long period of time. It indicates that a target was not simply a person who is known in niche circles or for a single event that was replicated in multiple sources. The totality of references here demonstrates notability in a way that no single reference does. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gsearch is straight to social media, facebook, youtube, tiktok. Those are social media and the first things that pop up in a search, I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GreatCaesarsGhost:, There is no "three source" requirement, but naming three sources that you believe to establish notability makes it easier for other editors sot hey don't have to go through absolutely everything to prove lack of notability. Doing something like "Eddie grew up in Virginia."^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] when the high volume of diverse sources each verify this uncontroversial is meaningless in elevating notability if these sources don't have informational value beyond corroborating he grew up there. That's called reference bombing, a tactic commonly employed by public relations editors to make non-notable things look notable.Graywalls (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting just to provide a little extra time for the article creator to respond to request here to provide that all important 3 sources. For the newcomers, merely stating that someone is important is not a good argument to make to cause Wikipedia to Keep an article. We rely on reliable sources that establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what policy is being invoked with this reference to "all important 3 sources"? I've been around awhile but only dabbled in AfD, but I've never seen this invoked before now. And in any case, any person weighing in here should read the article themselves and review the sources. And I still do not see one single delete vote subsequent to the nomination. If I (and I'm not sure why as the creator I have any particular responsibility here to make the case, beyond my own interest in not seeing my work go for naught) am to respond to an argument in favor of deletion, someone needs to present the prima facie case for deletion. The only comments made in support of delete are "Was mentioned at Just For Laughs in 2004 as a person to watch, but nothing of note since" which is demonstrably false, and "Gsearch is straight to social media" which is an absurd and non-existent standard for significance. I actually set up a google alert for this target, which immediately brought in RSes that do not show in the standard search. Google has its own purposes in search design that have nothing to do with our interest here. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great point and as far as I can tell it's just @Oaktree b making the case for deletion (though you're correct that even they haven't specifically called for deletion). They have said "if time allows, I'll review later." It seems that this user has lost interest in this discussion. I don't know if @Oaktree b was the user who flagged it for deletion but it seems irresponsible to do so, then not respond to the comments and sources, leaving things in limbo here. Mattwatterworth (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the article creator though, I've nominated it for deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bring your three sources and I'll take a look. Oaktree b (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you've added is acceptable for notability, TV Guide is just a list, the rest talk about him in passing. We need articles about the individual, not simply mentioning him. You don't have quality sources discussing the individual at length. Oaktree b (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are intending to cite the "Significant coverage" criteria here, but are explicitly contradicting it with "We need articles about the individual." Rather, it says SC "is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The SLO, Seattle Met, and Paulick Report all clearly meet this standard. As does TV Guide - there is zero reason to exclude it as being "just a list." Again, I acknowledge that the target is not an exceptionally famous person, and if you start with a presumption that a questionable case is not notable, then you will find a way to fail him on every criteria. But if you actually read GNG in concert with these sources, the answer is clear. I don't believe the intent of WP:N is to exclude people like him. It says that WP is to "avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". It is very difficult for me to see inclusion of this target as indiscriminate, or him as "unworthy of notice" given the breadth and duration of mention in reliable sources. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TV guide is two photos of his dvd covers and some text, it's not a useful source. The rest of the sourcing is as scant as this. Mentions, yes, trivial, also yes. We don't have a feature article about the individual, simply confirmation he works. This is not acceptable for Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the sourcing is as scant as this. Mentions, yes, trivial, also yes. Again, I invite you to look at the example WP:GNG provides for trivial: ""In high school, {Bill Clinton} was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." The trivial distinction is not based on how brief the coverage is or what portion of an article focuses on them, it is whether they are directly talking about a subject vs. just mentioning them casually while discussing something else. For example, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety mentions are certainly trivial, as they only mention Pence in regards to what Ralph Garman is doing (BTW, the mention of Garman himself is not trivial, even though he is not the subject of the article). But the SLO article has 8 paragraphs focused on Pence. Pence is the main subject of the Voyage LA and Ultimate Rabbit articles. The Paulick report has 3 lines about Pence. None of these are trivial mentions. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Clinton has other stuff upon which to build an article, you're hanging notability on a TVGuide listing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does not have to be the main topic, yes, but should be at least mentioned in the article. Some below don't even mention this person... Oaktree b (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N instructs us that "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics." Everything that comes after is an attempt to implement this idea, not subvert it. If you honestly believe after reviewing this article that there are "no reliable, independent sources" or that its inclusion would be "indiscriminate" then by all means vote to delete. But don't ignore the spirit of notability while splitting hairs on the letter. I would invite everyone to visit the case of Stubbs the cat. While Stubbs never did anything of consequence in his whole life (even by the lesser standards one might apply to a cat), he nevertheless has an article on WP. This is because Stubbs' owner told a silly lie about Stubbs as a joke, and this lie was repeated by many so-called reliable sources. Of course, the reliable sources were not being credulous, but they were subverting the very notion of "reliable" sources: they were printing lies! But that didn't matter when Stubbs became the subject of a very lively AfD. "Coverage in RS = notability!" the pedants cried. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbs has an entire article in Time magazine. You point me to one here for this fellow. That's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive coverage in RS, we use the three best sources here in AfD as needed. It's convention, if you don't agree, you can create a discussion about it over at the source board. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, source assessment table.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://voyagela.com/interview/meet-eddie-pence-hollywood/	Interview		is a long interview	✘ No
https://account.sanluisobispo.com/paywall/subscriber-only?resume=63864327&intcid=ab_archive	interview, primary	news media, seems RS	Out of ~300 words of SICOV, ~100 are secondary reporting, the rest is interview	✘ No
https://www.seattlemet.com/arts-and-culture/2010/11/round-1-of-seattle-comedy-competition-november-2010	review of a comedy event	~	small, brief mention	✘ No
https://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/eddie-pence/credits/3030404200/	TV Guide is RS	TV Guide is RS	brief photo captions after images of DVD covers	✘ No
https://paulickreport.com/news/people/santa-anitas-horn-blower-jay-cohen-to-host-first-ever-thats-a-stretch-comedy-show/	has a by-line	Horse industry publication	mentioned in one line as a performer, article is about a different thing all together	✘ No
https://music.apple.com/us/artist/eddie-pence/279065236	~ Apple music listing	Apple music is not a RS	playlist of his performances	✘ No
https://shorefire.com/releases/entry/comedy-dynamics-to-release-eddie-pence-the-unspecial	Press release	Press releases are not RS	Talks about the individual	✘ No
https://theultimaterabbit.com/2020/10/24/eddie-pence-the-unspecial-comedy-special-is-endlessly-funny/	? No byline	? Not listed as a RS, no author stated	Talks about his comedy event	? Unknown
https://variety.com/2020/music/news/kevin-and-bean-allie-mackay-gene-baxter-podcast-1234801967/	Variety is a RS	Variety is RS	Is about two altogether different people!	✘ No
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/music-news/kroqs-kevin-ryder-says-entire-morning-show-team-was-fired-1285185/	Hollywood Reporter is RS	RS	About another individual getting fired.	? Unknown
https://www.ocregister.com/2015/04/05/big-personalities-get-big-laughs-at-april-foolishness/	Orange County Register is a RS	? paywalled	? paywalled, likely no as it mentions a comedy event, not solely about this individual	? Unknown
https://www.latalkradio.com/content/wake-hollywood	Not published by this individual	A podcast is not a RS	Article is a bio for a different individual alltogether.	✘ No
https://nypost.com/2021/01/19/jenn-sterger-speaks-out-on-mets-jared-porter-sexting-scandal/	Not written by an associate of the individual	New York Post is not a RS	Does not mention, nor talk about the comic being discussed	✘ No
https://krod.com/cody-deckers-father-to-star-in-daddys-drunk-movie-reviews/	ESPN radio is RS and independent	ESPN is RS	Article about a different individual event alltogether	? Unknown
https://thedadlands.io/father-time/eddie-pence/	Subject is being interviewed on a podcast	Podcast is a non-RS	Individual talks aobut himself	✘ No
https://www.slashfilm.com/731218/the-15-best-documentaries-you-can-watch-on-netflix-right-now/	? Unclear	? Unclear reliability	Talks about Star Wars film trailers, not about this person	? Unknown
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_get_lost_losers	not written by the subject	rotten tomatoes is RS, but can only be used to source reviews as RS	Listing of varisou aspects of the comedy special	✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2275851/	? IMdB is crowd sourced, could be edited by anyone	We don't consider IMdB	~ Talks about the special	✘ No
https://tv.apple.com/us/movie/eddie-pence-thespecial-comedy-special/umc.cmc.2ggmv08c0l0ullxwjb86kkf4k	Apple is not involved with the comedian	listings on a streaming service are not to be used as RS	Talks aobut the comedy special	✘ No
https://shoutoutla.com/meet-tracey-pence-realtor-ceo-real-estate-in-focus/	is about an entirely different person	? appears to have a byline	Is NOT about the comedian, written by his wife? She talks about other things and thanks him, once.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

- I'm not sure what we're using for GNG, but NOTHING IN THE TABLE ABOVE CAN BE USED. Some articles do NOT EVEN mention the comedian. I'm rather bothered by the fact that we've used sources that don't event talk about he person, hoping to prove notability; the article about the realtor in Los Angeles in particular. Please discuss. Oaktree b (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) You are conflating the idea of independence as it pertains to WP:GNG with WP:V. When a reliable source chooses to keep factual statements in the voice of a subject (rather than using the voice of the publication), it can be understood that those statements are not subject to the ordinary editorial review of the publication, and thus may not meet WP:V. But independence for the purposes of notability is an entirely different thing. It means that an entity choosing to publish material on a subject has no connection to him, and is doing so for its ordinary journalistic purposes. The article could be little more that a press release and it would still be independent because the RS is choosing to use space to promote the subject. 2) An article being paywalled does not mean it cannot be used for GNG. GNG can be established by books and periodicals with zero online replication. Just because you cannot personally look at it (and I don't see why; I encounter no paywall for these sources) doesn't mean it can be rejected out of hand. 3) Finally, you have chosen to reject on SC grounds every single article where Pence is not the direct subject, which clearly indicates you do not understand this policy. There is a broad range of coverage between being the direct subject and being mentioned trivially. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources identified discuss this individual at length. There is multiple coverage, yes, V is covered. But we need sourcing about him, what you've given is simple name drops. I understand this police and have participated in over 1000 AfD discussions at this point. Regardless, feel free to introduce your own source assessment table so we can discuss the sources. I'm happy to help you do so. Alternatively, please point out which of the sources above are sig coverage of the person; none are that I can see. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattwatterworth What say you? Anything?Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting and those advocating Keep would do well to discuss, specifically, the source analysis and not talk broadly about policy, focus on this article not other articles about cats. It might help establish notability if Wikipedia had an article about this popular podcast he's a cohost of but we don't. But I mostly want to encourage uninvolved editors to voice their opinion on what should happen with this article. Policy discussions on GNG and SIGCOV can continue elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oaktree b's excellent source assessment table seems accurate for all the sources used in the article—it's particularly notable that large portions of the sources are about other people and only mention Pence in passing. There's no independent significant coverage of Pence presented and he fails NACTOR. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 06:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's quite obvious from Oaktree b's fantastic source assessment table that none of the sources qualify for notability, as Dylnuge said above, most of the sources are passing mentions, and there is no independent significant coverage of Pence. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Weak delete. Relying on Oaktree b's table's excellent notes, I am evaluating whether we could build up WP:BASIC from the sources presented. To start building BASIC, I'm looking by color for either at least 1 YYY; or a good collection of YYY or YYY or YYY without severe issues; (or maybe even a lot of YYN with short-but-nontrivial mentions or a lot of NYY interviews from which we could extract factual data not dependent on the interview). Unfortunately, based on this table, we don't have the sources to create an NPOV, verifiable article without original research. "online celebrity" types like podcast hosts or streamers often don't get a lot of independent, reliable, significant coverage in the current media landscape. At this point in the discussion, rather than bringing more low quality sources, I would encourage searching for one YYY source. —siro χ o 08:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SLO and Voyage LA meet all three. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b I was able to view the SLO piece, maybe this link helps [18]. Out of ~300 words of SICOV, ~100 are secondary reporting, the rest is interview, if you want to update the table. —siro χ o 21:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will, thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the source review having looked over either the best or the most unknown sources myself, and the article doesn't meet WP:GNG at this time. It's all passing mentions. SportingFlyer T·C 14:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The SLO has 8 paragraphs, and the Voyage LA is 100% on him. They are not all passing. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Voyage LA is an interview, which unfortunately isn't a secondary source for the purposes of GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage LA is an interview, it's a primary source. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SLO appears to be RS, but he talks about himself; out of 300 words, 100 works are about him. Not sigcov by any stretch. Oaktree b (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've updated my !vote above to "draftify or weak delete". The SLO Tribune source helps, but without at least a few more similar ones (or again, at least 1 YYY source) its pretty thin. It may be WP:TOOSOON or it may just take more time to find sources, so a draft seems like a good way to go forwards. Are any keep proponents willing to look after a draft, as that would give that option more weight. —siro χ o 23:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the primary contributor, I would certainly be willing to look after a draft to keep my work from going for naught. Are there additional guidelines somewhere for when to promote? How many more "three check" references are needed? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a guideline we ask for three here at AfD; anything more than two helps to be honest. If you can find critical reviews of any one of his performances in the likes of Variety, TV Guide, Common Sense Media, that helps. Extensive reviews, not one liners like we have now. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD-I would be the guideline I think, it says AFC is optional. The WP:BASIC notability guidelines for biographies are a bit flexible. Oaktree's suggestion would be a relatively non-controversial for the majority of editors who participate in these discussions. In my personal assessment, given what we already have, we could meet WP:BASIC with 1 further secondary, independent, reliable source with significant coverage about the subject. Oaktree, myself, and others might have slightly different takes on this. —siro χ o 20:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain the policy-based rationale for excluding interviews from the "independent" qualifier? GNG says "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It further clarifies that "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent". This rather clearly indicates that "independent of the subject" is a quality of the publishing source, not the nature of the coverage. No one is interviewing me, because I am not notable. If the New York Times chose to publish an interview with me, that would be an indication that I am notable. This is explicitly what GNG is saying. You could certainly make an argument that statements within the interview are not completely reliable, but that doesn't speak to notability. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People have different approaches on this. My personal take is that anything attributed to the subject from an interview the author had with the subject is not independent. However, attributed statements that came from other sources are independent, as the secondary source is providing coverage of the statement. Background information (that is not attributed to the subject) in a generally reliable source can be assumed to be independent.

For example, from this discussion, by my reckoning, the VoyageLA source is not independent, but the SLO Tribune source has about 100 words of independent coverage. —siro χ o 21:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, We are conflating verifiability of individual statements with independence of the publishing source. You used the adjective "independent" to modify "anything attributed to the subject", "attributed statements" and "background information". Independent for the purposes of GNG is referring to the source, not the nature of the coverage. "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" i.e. an interview at EddiePence.com is not independent of the artist and therefore would not convey notability. But a long form interview in the New York Times would clearly convey notability, because you must be notable for them to choose to cover you. This is what GNG is talking about: the choice of someone to talk about you is the bedrock of notability. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This specific discussion has happened many times on Wikipedia and hinges on where individual editors draw the line between primary and secondary sources. At least one essay (WP:INTERVIEWS) suggests The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material.

At the very least we can recognize that there's not a firm consensus on where the line is between a primary source and secondary source for news articles. —siro χ o 21:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly surpasses the educational value of Lyman Smith (American football) or Bedri Böke (among many others who aren't even discussed by a single person, much less in a manner suggesting notability). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the good folks who trawl AfD have not received the memo on WP:BURO. This discussion makes the debates at ITN/C seem reasonable. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to see an OTHERSTUFF argument from such an experienced editor. This isn't very helpful. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I think there is a consensus to Delete this article given the source analysis table but there is also a suggestion to Draftify. This is a valid ATD and I want to see if this has support before closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Removal from mainspace is appropriate per the source analysis; what I have double-checked seems like sound analysis to me. My main concern with draftification is that it will be very difficult to write anything about this individual that complies with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, unless we have missed some appropriate sources in this discussion. It's tricky to support draftification when a policy-compliant article, which is the eventual goal of draftification, seems so unlikely to emerge. But let's give it a chance. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond J. Safra Synagogue (Florida)[edit]

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

Non-notable congregation; building is non-historical, sourcing is largely confirmation of routine happenings. Oaktree b (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this because one of the other two synagogues in Brooklyn were founded in memory of the same person and part of Brooklyn's larger Aleppan community who also founded the famous Shaare Zion on Ocean Parkway. But then again notability is not inherited so this could go either way. NYC Guru (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Judaism, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only source in the article is to the synagogue's own website. Appears to fail WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. Here is a half-page feature in the Miami Herald, here is a book with about 40 words on point but lots of helpful context, here is a South Florida Sun Sentinel article with about a paragraph on point. I wouldn't call this an abundance of source material, but these all appear to be reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and to provide sufficient information on the article subject that no original research is required to extract the content, so it seems to me that the GNG is met. -- Visviva (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The half-page feature is okay, but I don't think the other two get over the GNG line. If there's anything else out there I'd be persuaded to change my !vote, but right now it just looks like an article on a local place of worship. SportingFlyer T·C 14:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Stalemate over whether GNG is met with sources available.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but add references as there seem to be plenty of references, there just not added to the article El Wikipedian (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK – The Grid (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

agree. the page should stay but they it needs to be significantly improved. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment following relist: there seems to be a sticking point here, as in other discussions, over whether WP:SIGCOV should be interpreted subjectively (coverage that we would personally call significant) or objectively as provided in the actual guideline (coverage that addresses the article subject directly enough that no original research is needed to extract the content). While recognizing that all rules including this one should be interpreted flexibly in the service of our encyclopedic purpose, I don't think that a subjective definition of sigcov is reasonable in view of the guideline text. You can certainly make the argument that we should ignore a source that doesn't meet some particular personal threshold of significance, but IMO such arguments should not be presented as SIGCOV-based. -- Visviva (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under your definition, two paragraphs of coverage would make something "significant." It's always subjective, otherwise we'd just all fall in line here at AfD, and considering the sources currently available are a local news feature article, a very brief mention in a book, and a paragraph in an article about a family, it doesn't matter that there may be enough information for a blurb - it simply has not been covered significantly by secondary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 14:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that there is a rough consensus on what it means for coverage to be significant, or at least on a test for significance. If the sources pass that test, it's significant coverage, even if there's not a lot of material to write an article from. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:57, 6 August 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!} 05:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The newspaper sources identified are sufficient to establish notability. gidonb (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that the sources we have pass WP:GNG. There's certainly not a lot of material, but significance of coverage is roughly defined in WP:SIGCOV, and by that definition, it's enough. Just barely, but enough. In this kind of super-borderline case, I think an argument from WP:NEXIST is also reasonable; I'm sure there's something on this synagogue that we haven't found, and that something may be enough to put it over the line if you think what we do have here does not suffice. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Simić (composer)[edit]

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

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

Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC after a decade. Previous versions included upcoming announcements (beoclick) and non-third party sources. I removed those. Even playing music at one United Nations event needs third party coverage to base notability. JFHJr (㊟) 03:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The UN event isn't that much of a notability claim, especially without WP:SUSTAINED coverage of it. A search for his Serbian name returned this BBC article with a passing mention whose machine translation saying he competed to represent Serbia in 2023 Eurovision but lost, but, like I said, that's passing, and not a claim of notability either. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 04:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 30 July 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!} 11:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basin Radio Network[edit]

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

This is a group of radio stations in one small market in Wyoming. Tagged as unsourced since 2017, it's hard to imagine this meeting NCORP.

The parent company of this group has two other clusters in Wyoming that also have articles, and are included in this nomination for similar reasons (though one has no tags at all, and the other has been tagged as unsourced since 2009):

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

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

Out of an abundance of caution, I should note this is technically not the first nomination for this article, but the previous attempt (in 2021) was made by a sock of a WMF-banned user and was thus itself deleted. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My search found nothing third-party for any three of these. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 05:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also couldn't find anything independent. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:19, 30 July 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 Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies. Note that WP:BLAR allows for relatively bold redirecting as long as there are no objections. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Katchen[edit]

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

Failed judicial nominee who doesn't meet the GNG. A redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies seems to make sense here. Let'srun (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Alaska. Let'srun (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL per never being elected. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 05:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and Clyde. No combination of reliable sources appears to treat this subject to in-depth coverage upon which to base an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 05:34, 30 July 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 El Salvador women's international footballers. RL0919 (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeimy Prudencio[edit]

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

Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. The subject has made at least three appearances for the El Salvador women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and El Salvador. JTtheOG (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Can't find any independent in-depth sources either. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 05:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: It looks WP:TOOSOON for a stand alone BLP article. I wish her success and notability in the future. JFHJr (㊟) 05:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' as above. Giant Snowman 15:10, 30 July 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 other nominations will be considered separately, as the nomination was not bundled. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wonjong station[edit]

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

Per WP:NTRAINSTATION, "Train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations, but may be notable if they satisfy the WP:GNG criteria, the criteria of another subject-specific notability guideline, or other criteria within this notability guideline." This article does not appear to meet general notability guidelines (unless perhaps the Korean-language articles bring to light notability). A Google search has provided no additional sources to prove notability. ETA: Apologies for not bundling AfDs. Significa liberdade (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Siheung Daeya station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Sinhyeon station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung City Hall station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Wonsi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Seonbu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Dalmi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung Neunggok station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Delete: Searches for its English and Korean names return nothing. Given the station was only opened 30 days ago, also perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]
- Keep per Eastmain's references. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 02:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. @ClydeFranklin: I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cites added by Eastmain. Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:44, 5 August 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 El Salvador women's international footballers. RL0919 (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Terezón[edit]

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

Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. The subject has made at least three appearances for the El Salvador women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and El Salvador. JTtheOG (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: My search found only passing mentions, fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 05:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' as above. Giant Snowman 15:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrin Netzer[edit]

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

10 appearances for the Liechtenstein national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found transfer announcements like this. JTtheOG (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Europe. JTtheOG (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:11, 30 July 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 Seohae Line#Stations. Some related noms had similar discussions where this was treated as a bundled nom, but here, editors !voted to redirect this specific article, so the consensus is clearer. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wonsi station[edit]

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

Per WP:NTRAINSTATION, "Train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations, but may be notable if they satisfy the WP:GNG criteria, the criteria of another subject-specific notability guideline, or other criteria within this notability guideline." This article does not appear to meet general notability guidelines (unless perhaps the Korean-language articles bring to light notability). A Google search has provided no additional sources to prove notability. ETA: Apologies for not bundling AfDs. I'm learning! Significa liberdade (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wonjong station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung Daeya station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Sinhyeon station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung City Hall station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Wonsi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Seonbu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Dalmi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that Siheung Neunggok station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Redirect to Seohae Line#Stations per WP:NTRAINSTATION and WP:GNG. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Korea. Jumpytoo Talk 08:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Seohae Line#Stations Djflem (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True Story (The B.G.'z album)[edit]

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

Not-very-successful album by not-very-successful group. Not enough sources writing about it to satisfy WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that the band's article is also being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The BG'z. When searching, there may be some confusion over various uses of punctuation in their name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article has references to AllMusic and Rolling Stone, but those are only very brief listings of the album's existence. There is some online interest in the album as a very early teenage work for some guys who became notable later, but it has no pro reviews or other reliable coverage in its own right. Also, the BGz article will likely be deleted or redirected, so this album article can be deleted as there will be no viable redirect target. If anyone searches for it, they can go to the biography sections for each rapper's article for historical tidbits. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:07, 1 August 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 Hot Boys. ✗plicit 01:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The BG'z[edit]

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

Non-notable group. Redirect to Hot Boys as the BG'z are considered a precursor to that group. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this page was created by a sockpuppet, Free Keyz, so it could be speedied per G5. But I think it's worth settling the matter by discussion. Binksternet (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: uncontroversial G5. Doesn't need a thread. HarukaAmaranth (話) 02:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: this not eligible for G5 since the master wasn't blocked until after creation. I just blocked all three accounts today. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Although the musical group's importance is low, it does not necessarily mean that deletion is necessary to resolve the dispute. And the information about the group was recorded by some authoritative magazines. I think the best way is to preserve edit history through redirection. -Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fumikas Sagisavas: Which article would you suggest the article be redirected to? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also the AfD for the group's one album at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Story (The B.G.'z album). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hot Boys as recommended by the nominator. This early teenage group had guys who became notable later, but that is a historical tidbit that can be mentioned briefly at each of their articles. If someone happens to search for the name, their immediate successor group is the most viable redirect target. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:02, 1 August 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. after recent improvements to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violence and autism[edit]

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

The article attempts to cover a variety of phenomena in one article: for example, violence against autistic people, self-harm behaviors, outbursts, and intentional violence perpetrated by autistic individuals. However, as pointed out on the talk page there don't appear to be sources that cover these phenomena as a group, meaning that the article's linkage of these things is essentially original research. While it would be possible to split the article, unfortunately it was a straight translation from French Wikipedia which does not require WP:MEDRS sourcing. No one has checked the references and a lot of them do not appear to meet MEDRS standards; the content cannot be kept without valid sourcing. There is no obvious redirect target. (t · c) buidhe 01:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've described why this article is problematic at length at Talk:Violence and autism. To quote myself, "the article in its current state creates/suggests connections that are not backed by any literature. This is already evident from the fact that the article never defines the term "violence" and uses it in various different meanings throughout the text without distinguishing them." Neither the translator nor the organization who paid the translator have shown any interest in potentially resolving the issues.--TempusTacet (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my !vote thanks to updates. When I get a chance to read in-depth I may return with a new !vote. Delete I think an article could feasibly be written on this topic. However it would require WP:TNT and there does not seem to be the impulse to do that. There have been clear issues with this article from the start on en (no fault of the translator) but they have largely gone unresolved even with the attention given. Even WP:ATD specifically notes that If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion., and I think we're at that point here. —siro χ o 02:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly problematic article with various unresolvable issues, eg. not defining the term "violence" in the title; what should have been a minor section in autism spectrum is unnecessarily elongated into such an unprofessional article,

~~NanaOn-Sha (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)~~ sock puppet NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ without prejudice against the translator, or the concept that a good article of this title could be written. One big problem is the sheer quantity of (often contradictory) stuff that's been published. It's all too easy to write your own personal essay synthesised from the sources you find most appropriate, rather than a balanced overview of the current mess. The other big problem is that beliefs about autism, attitudes to autism - even the definition of what autism is - are wildly different between different countries. As a result, we've got an article that reflects French issues with autism transplanted into an English-speaking Wikipedia, which already struggles with the (huge!) difference between the US and the UK on autistic matters - and the article just comes across as very weirdly lopsided. Since the subject is already so messy, I would strongly suggest that anyone attempting to write should stick to a single topic (e.g. self-harm in autism; violence and prejudice against autistic people; correlation or otherwise between autism and criminal behaviour), and try to provide an unbiased overview of public perceptions and medical/educational sources on that subject across multiple countries. It won't be easy. Elemimele (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: you've made a truly vast improvement; in fact the article is unrecognisable compared to how it was this morning, for which reason I've struck my delete. I'm still worried that the entire section on violence expressed by people with autism is referenced from French authors, and therefore may not fully reflect views in other countries, but Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be perfect - they can be improved. I do not think this article is still eligible for TNT, and by splitting up the forms of violence into very clear, separate sections, the problem of mixed subject is greatly reduced. I'd be prepared to accept a keep in its current improved state as I now think it's encyclopaedic, relatively balanced, useful, sourced, and deals with something notable. Elemimele (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was a remarkably poor article (ala WP:TNT and WP:ATD), but after some cleanup, it should be re-evaluated; I believe that there is, or can be, an article here, and there is now a structure and theme. There are definitely sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe, Elemimele, Siroxo, TempusTacet, and NanaOn-Sha: for a new look (I applied the TNT). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see any sources that cover all these phenomenon as a group? If the content is to be kept, I think a split is in order. (t · c) buidhe 22:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All what phenomenon? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, and looking at the references, it seems that there are a different set of sources covering violence *by* autistic people and violence *against* autistic people. It's not obvious why (or if) these phenomena are related. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe All of the items you mentioned in the nomination are no longer in the article (eg, self-harm is a symptom, and I excised it, along with others). The article now has two things only: violence against people with autism, and violence by people with autism, along with public perception of same.
In medical writing, both "violence by" and "violence against" are topics that could be included under Prognosis or Outcomes. For example: In 2003, children diagnosed with Asperger's were more likely to be victims of violence than tormentors. [6] is in the article, and cited to a source that discusses both.
Also, a very recent review which I haven't yet incorporated (because it is so meaty and contains so much info that should be used, PMID 35637365) includes both, as a sample (others did as well, but I failed to note which at the time I read them): see the section on A History of Victimisation.
I also don't understand the argument that all aspects of a medical article have to covered in one set of sources; if that were the case, I'd not be able to include, for example, a lot of the content of Tourette syndrome#History or Tourette syndrome#Society and culture or Dementia with Lewy bodies#Caregiving or Dementia with Lewy bodies#History or Dementia with Lewy bodies#History. All of these have completely different sets of sources than diagnosis, treatment, symptoms, etc. You seem to be implying there is still SYNTH in the article, but I'm not seeing that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PMID 33107234 also looks at being both a victim and perpetrator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's always a requirement that all aspects of a topic are covered in the same sources, but when there seem to be multiple topics that are bundled together it is a way to show that the connection exists outside of Wikipedia. (t · c) buidhe 17:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe here's an entire scholarly tome from a reputable publisher by recognized ASD experts like Fred Volkmar that deals with both "violence by" and "violence against" (that is, both victims and perpetrators).
Handbook of Autism Spectrum Disorder and the Law. (2021). Springer International Publishing.

Violence by and violence against autistic people are the only topics covered here, along with social perception of same. If you see anything that doesn't belong (I don't), that can be solved via normal editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – seems to have a clearer scope and cohesion due to recent improvements by Sandy. McGuire and Schmidt alone seem substantial enough to imply notability, but there are many other sources used as well. Aza24 (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (old !vote previously stricken above). I had to distance a bit from the old problematic article before re-reading. But SandyGeorgia's rework of this article is a solid WP:HEY. The article maintains NPOV both in phrasing and in weight. The article avoids synthesis, both in the immediate conclusions, as well as the subject matter presented (it's not a COATRACK anymore). Honestly, the main remaining criticism of the article is that it's not done, which of course is never a reason for deletion. —siro χ o 00:43, 5 August 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.