< July 06	July 08 >

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!} 04:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Party (Ireland)[edit]

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

Fails Notablity. This political party never successfully registered as a political party nor contested any elections nor engaged in activism that was reported upon. In fact, the article is actually discussing 3 separate organisations: An Irish party that existed between 2009 and 2011, a separate organisation that existed from 2012 to 2014 (as noted in the article) and an unaffiliated student group. There are almost no reliable secondary sources for these groups; Irish national newspapers only cover the foundation of the original party in 2009 and nothing thereafter. It seems that Pirate Party (Kazakhstan) was deleted for a similar lack of notability/inability to actually organise.

I will note a number of other Pirate Party branches with very similar issues in subsequent edits:

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same primary issue as the Irish branch; they lack notability. These articles simply note their founding and no subsequent information. In most cases, exactly like the Irish branch, they were founded and never advanced beyond that:

CeltBrowne (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties, particularly if they haven't achieved electoral success or other notable achievements within electoral politics. If these parties were created but never realised then their articles shouldn't be retained. doktorb _words^deeds 05:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, I agree with the above. --Bduke (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they all fail notability. Spleodrach (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added Pirate Party of Montenegro to the list "post script" as well after the first three votes, I hope this isn't an issue. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Bulgarian one. I'm not checking the others. --Nk (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Morocco, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, and Montenegro. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Irish example is barely a party, much closer to an account of a website. Its claim to notability seems to be bases on the UK Pirate Party existing. :Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but only because all of the actual news links on the page 404 or relate to Sweden. It looks like they got some independent press a decade or so ago, but none of those articles are verifiable anymore because they weren't archived. If we had them, I'd probably vote to keep. Kalethan (talk) 20:03, 13 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!} 23:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Anta Diop College, Johannesburg[edit]

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

Non-notable private school. Couldn't find sources that indicate notability. Park3r (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and South Africa. Park3r (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to notability in the article, and searching online finds nothing but listings. Note there does appear to be a couple of other institutions with the same name in other countries, which makes searching harder. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Searching online found nothing to show notability (though I also ran into the same issue that ActivelyDisinterested did with similarly named institutions muddying the results). - Aoidh (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources provided to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 14 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!} 22:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Onezia[edit]

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

12 appearances for the Seychelles national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:33, 7 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) 22:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is one minor source that mentions him in passing, no newspapers, etc. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. No sources could be found online showing notability; sources had very passing mentions at best. - Aoidh (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per my BEFORE search. Jogurney (talk) 18:52, 14 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!} 22:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Iller[edit]

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

Eight official appearances for the United States Virgin Islands national soccer team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Caribbean, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. No sources could be found online showing notability. - Aoidh (talk) 16:43, 8 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!} 06:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baobab-K[edit]

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

Non-notable military vehicle. Beyond photos of it, I can't find sourcing that discusses it in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Technology. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b This is the official site of the military company (https://www.hsw.pl/en/offer/scattered-mine-laying-system-baobab-k/). Onesgje9g334 (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b And here is another one from Busniss Insider (https://businessinsider.com.pl/wiadomosci/baobab-k-zasili-polska-armie-co-to-za-pojazd-wideo/fzj21j8). Onesgje9g334 (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable per this by-lined article and these two others^[1][2]. Looks like there are probably still more sources out there, too.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added some refs, there is probably enough for inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist (Attention to those admins who just review AFDs with 3 relists! Here's one).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources discussed above and added to the article seem to show enough notability to meet WP:GNG. It also meets Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles), but I wouldn't put too much weight on meeting that seemingly-forgotten niche essay. - Aoidh (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close now per WikiPedia:Relist. Okoslavia (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above; article seems (now) to be amply sourced to meet the WP:GNG. -- Visviva (talk) 23:56, 8 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 no consensus‎. Keep's refutation of the BLP1E argument is solid, but there is ultimately a lack of consensus on whether coverage meets GNG, and the extent to which coverage of Puneet Superstar's Big Boss appearance counts towards establishing his notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Puneet Superstar[edit]

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

PROD was previously contested: influencer known for participating on Bigg Boss, fails WP:NACTOR. Arguements could be made for passing WP:GNG, but these sources are either possibly unreliable (refs one and four both have no documented editorial practices) or cover Kumar only as run of the mill television coverage. The article seems to fall foul of WP:BLP1E, as all of the sources found (in article and during WP:BEFORE) only cover Kumar in the context of Bigg Boss. His impact on this event was definitely not large, as he was removed from the show on the first day. If decided upon, an appropriate redirect / merge target would be Bigg_Boss_OTT_(Hindi_season_2). Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Statesman article is independent, reliable SIGCOV, providing a description of his work, relationship with fans, etc. Given that the India Today article is independent and reliable, and goes in depth on his contributions to Bigg Boss (far more than a passing mention), we should have enough for GNG. (For RS I'm referring to WP:ICTFSOURCES) —siro χ o 09:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo, what do you think about this falling foul of Wikipedia:BLP1E? I addressed the existence of some sources in my nomination, but this is still routine coverage of a popular show that doesn't show that Kumar is notable beyond a single event. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 09:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is not a "low profile individual" so it wouldn't apply. (Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.) But I could be misunderstanding the purpose of BLP1E. —siro χ o 10:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO1E could also be relevant here. The one event would be this TV show appearance. I am unsure so won't bolded vote, but figured I'd mention. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) I'm feeling like a lawyer now: It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. I could read that to say, he's famous for Bigg Boss, but is notable for other meme/stream/fan stuff? I don't really have a horse in this !vote, just always trying to get to the bottom of things. —siro χ o 10:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same. My goal for the next few weeks is to participate in a ton of AFDs, pay attention to the outcomes, then tweak my !voting accordingly. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you do stick around, we've lost participants in the AfD discussions over the last little while. This is a good way to learn about wikipedia policies, notability and get a "behind the scenes" look at how it works. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty new to AfD (especially noms) so this is also a learning experience for me! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily, I read that the opposite way! I interpret "conversely, a person may be generally famous, but significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person," as meaning that Kumar may be "famous" for his social media stunts (that was in fact the reason the PROD was contested), but he is only "notable" for his participation in this one event. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 11:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Plenty of coverage in the Times of India, one thing in Mashable (which doesn't look like a sponsored piece) [3]. Statesman as above is another good source. I think we're just past notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not much reliable source tk support WP:BIO.All the article published just because of BIGG BOSS OTT is hyped now. Can't be notable for a TV series. ‪Nomadwikiholic‬ (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to an established guideline that suggests one cannot be notable for a TV series? Additionally, note that the reliable independent sources above may have been published due to the event but are able to establish notability outside of the event. e.g.

"Puneet Kumar, also known as Lord Puneet or Puneet Superstar, gained fame after a video of him passionately shouting while riding as a passenger on a motorcycle went viral...Puneet Superstar is a social media influencer who has struck a chord with fans through his passionate expressions about the challenges of daily life, earning him the moniker of “hod” by many. He is renowned for donating 90% of his earnings to support underprivileged children and individuals, which has naturally endeared him to the public.[4] —siro χ o 21:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough reliable in-depth source which is supporting WP:GNG and WP:BIO. All those article is about BIGG BOSS OTT. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.185.129.20 (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:BLP1E. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 08:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To any future participants in this discussion. Please read through WP:LPI before referencing WP:BLP1E. —siro χ o 09:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are differing views about this article in relation to WP:BLP1E (a question that seems to be coming up a lot lately at AFD discussions). Some Deletes frankly seem more like IDON'TLIKEITs than policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per siroxo. GNG is met, and BLP1E does not apply because the LPI prong is not met. That said, the sourcing still feels pretty thin for a BLP and a merge as suggested above might not be a bad idea. -- Visviva (talk) 23:10, 8 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!} 05:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Gupta (attorney)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability under WP:NPOL. Too few secondary sources Let'srun (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Kpg jhp jm 16:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet the GNG, or any other notability standard, and it seems heavily promotional to boot. The sources presented are all primary, or are WP:ROUTINE namedrops that don't provide the subject WP:SIGCOV. Ravenswing 06:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete; agree with Ravenswing in full. It fails WP:GNG through sourcing issues; what more is there to say? Iseult^Δxparlez moi 14:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC) *Comment struck pending new source evaluation. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've had a chance to review the new sources and am happy to say that this should pass GNG. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources are more than sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources would those be? The ones that aren't primary are namedrops. Have you uncovered others you'd like to cite? Ravenswing 08:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There were five references sourced. I've since added multiple additional references.

MIAJudges (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... one of which I've just removed because it doesn't mention the subject at all, a couple of which are articles BY the subject, one which runs to the subject's law firm site, and another which is primary. You would do well to review WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP for a better understanding of what we need in sources and what sources qualify to establish notability. Ravenswing 10:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of your suggested reading but thanks. For the record I already said I believe he was notable so I am just adding additional bio & references, not necessarily ones that would establish notability since as I said I believe he is already notable.

MIAJudges (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you hadn't proffered any rationale at all, one way or the other. (points upward at your prior post) With that, though, I'll ask you the same question I asked Beyond My Ken: which sources, precisely, do you think are qualifying sources to meet the GNG? Ravenswing 05:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are three publications listed as well as articles detailing him from Law 360, The American Law Institute & Law.com.

Have you ever thought perhaps instead of trying to get articles deleted that numerous Wikipedia users like to read, perhaps you can add some references & bio to the articles yourself? Wouldn’t that take less time then the back & fourth your going through? Would it hurt you to take a few minutes out of your day since you’re working in good faith to help your fellow users out by adding to the pages you’re trying to get deleted? Maybe try it just once & see how it makes you feel?

MIAJudges (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it thousands of times, thanks. Funny that you talk about good faith, though, given that you put in a spurious headline in the Garnett article to make it appear as it were a GNG-qualifying source. [5] It may well be that time would be as well spent in checking all the times you've added sources to articles, to see if there are any others that have been made up. Ravenswing 06:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have never made anything up on Wikipedia. If you look, I wasn't even the person who initially put the Garnett reference on her page, I just added an additional reference. Your constant deceptions & lies on the various deletion request & AFD's are getting out of hand at this point. I have replied to two of them on other pages tonight alone. One you claim you didn't accuse me of saying the Tiffany Cartwright page was back up because it was later taken down. A simple scroll up on the page shows you replied 4 hours after me with a blatant (I'll try to be nice here) false accusation when you knew the page was back up when I wrote the statement & was taken back down after I wrote it. And I won't even get into your vulgarities used on the Jennifer L. Hall deletion request page. Your obsession with me is getting out of hand & frankly I am tired of your misrepresentations, accusation, use of bad language & constant mudslinging.

I look at Wikipedia as a place for users to be able to look up information. If I see a problem, I quietly fix it & keep going. Just yesterday I was scrolling on the Eli J. Richardson page & saw a notable case listed with no reference. Guess what I did? I went online, found two references in under 45 seconds & added them. I didn't accuse the user of acting in bad faith or any of the other crap you have been spewing the past week. I didn't delete the case because there was no reference. I tried to improve the page by finding the references. I know I would have been justified in deleting the case without a reference but that wouldn't have made the page better & at the end of the day that is what we should be aiming for.

I am trying to be even tempered & continue to assume you are acting in good faith, but it is getting harder by the day. I hope I wake up tomorrow & see your obsession with having my name come out of your mouth end finally. The administrator for the Margaret Garnett agreed with keeping the article. I know that is not the position you were advocating for, but you win some, you lose some. Give it up. Log off the computer, go outside & take a breath of fresh air. There is more to life then losing a AFD request. I've won some & I've lost some but the one thing I've never done is constantly continue to keep going at it with another user that has repeatedly said they have given their opinion & doesn't want to continue a back & fourth so that other users can give their opinions.

MIAJudges (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but with regards to the Margaret Garnett, AfD, this is a relisting to garner further consensus, not an agreement to keep the article. I gather that you might be newer to AfD; this is routine. In any case, I see that you've made comments on fourteen AfDs. All are to keep in some form. None of the arguments put forth are, in my evaluation, based in policy. I've tried to help you out on some (Mehalchick, Garza, Crews) when I believe that current sourcing and extant coverage justify keeps. I hope that you see my tangible actions there in good faith.

That said, your success record is 3/14. Of the remainder, the Crews AfD is still open, Maddox and Gupta (this one) have been relisted, and all the others have been closed as delete or draftify by administrators over the number of keep votes in favor of extant policy, which follows deletion discussion closing guidelines. Generally, we want AfD vote alignment to be above 85 or 90%. I'd suggest reviewing our notability guidelines and closed AfDs to see how these policies and discussions work in practice. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 17:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to the origin of this statement: Generally, we want AfD vote alignment to be above 85 or 90%. I reviewed WP:AFD and could not find anything to support it. If this is true and dissenting viewpoints are now being disregarded merely for being dissenting, it betrays very serious problems of circularity and groupthink in our decisionmaking processes. -- Visviva (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was not precise enough. By vote alignment I mean the alignment of a user's vote with the end result of the discussion, not alignment of all the votes in specific discussions. A high percentage therefore demonstrates understanding of notability guidelines and how deletion discussions play out. Functionally, an RfA candidate (stringent, to be fair) must met at around 90-95. In any case, 3/14 spells trouble for me, especially considering how most of the 8 deletes were closed as such at the administrator's discretion to overrule weight of votes in favor of quality of votes. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iseult are you referring to AFDStats? Because these can easily be gamed. Just come in at the end of an AFD discussion and vote with the majority of editors and it's likely that you'll have a high percentage of agreement, even if you never post a deletion rationale more than "per nom". I don't think anyone should take AFDstats as a meaningful measure of AFD participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't; I went through actual AfD contributions, because there haven't been that many. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 15:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT isn't a sufficient reason for keeping an article. Let'srun (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may need to read guidelines related to the notability of people: WP:N (especially WP:GNG) and WP:BIO. Discussions based on policies and guidelines would be helpful. If you can provide multiple reliable, secondary, independent sources with significant coverage about the subject of the article, I will change my vote to keep. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just added additional references on Deepak Gupta.

MIAJudges (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to clear up the differing opinions regarding the article sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Sources in this article are not independent, reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage about the person per the source assessment table provided. Most sources are not independent, and some sources don't have significant coverage. (New text added 03:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)) I believe the article is between "Delete" and "Keep" because of four unknown sources and several additional sources provided by Visviva. I'd like to wait for another editor to evaluate these sources before changing my vote to "Delete" or "Keep". (New text added 03:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)) I believe that the subject of the article meets WP:GNG according to the evaluation of several editors. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://guptawessler.com/people/	Own website.		~	✘ No
http://guptawessler.com/people/deepak-gupta/	Own website.			✘ No
https://fedsoc.org/contributors/deepak-gupta	In most cases, the biographical information on a person's "contributor" page is provided directly by the person, and the Federalist Society does not edit or otherwise endorse that information.		~	✘ No
https://www.ali.org/members/member/430816/	Related to Ali members.			✘ No
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/11/06/deepak-gupta-gets-call-to-argue-position-trumps-doj-abandoned/	? Cannot open the website.	?	?	? Unknown
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/biden-takes-time-weighing-next-pick-for-d-c-circuit	? Cannot open the website.	?	?	? Unknown
https://www.law360.com/articles/979467/the-damn-good-lawyer-squaring-off-with-trump	? Cannot open the website.	?	?	? Unknown
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/us/politics/ford-supreme-court-liability.html	? Cannot open the website.	?	?	? Unknown
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-jurisdiction-idUSKBN1ZK2UX			Only a passing mention about the person's opinion.	✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-otc-ford-idUSKBN26S3KC			Only a passing mention.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20171201035332/http://wtnh.com/2017/11/11/electronic-filing-coming-to-the-supreme-court/			Only a passing mention.	✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-creditcards-idUSKBN17020G			Only a sentence talking about the person.	✘ No
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-nov-05-la-fi-lazarus-20101105-story.html			Trivial coverage.	✘ No
https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/deepak-gupta/	Related to Harvard Law School.			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Keep. With respect for the clearly substantial amount of work involved in preparing the table above, it doesn't really provide much information if the analysis is just going to skip over the two articles that are (on their face) about the subject. I'll confess that I also don't have access to Law360, but the National Law Journal profile has been (for some reason) republished by Yahoo Sports here. It's not the deepest, but clears WP:SIGCOV's bar of being sufficiently detailed that no original research is needed to extract the content. Here is another NLJ article with a modest amount of biographical content. Here is a Washington Examiner article that would definitely need to be used with caution (RSP lists it as "no consensus") but does provide quite deep coverage of him (and I daresay independence from the article subject is unlikely to be a concern with that source). The great number of Deepak Guptas out there makes this one a tough Google, but I don't have a sense of scraping the bottom of the barrel for coverage here. Given that Gupta is a high-profile figure who has received widespread (if often rather shallow) coverage, I am also inclined to assume that the Law360 profile I can't read is in fact the in-depth independent profile that I would expect from that source. -- Visviva (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Law360 article so you can read it without a subscription...

https://archive.is/MyLRr

MIAJudges (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The person who loves reading (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Visviva. Enervation (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree generally with the source assessment table above, but regarding the four "Unknown" evaluations I have to agree with Visviva's assessment and additional added sources (though I would not rely on the Washington Examiner one personally) as well as the Law360 archive that WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are met. Since he's not (currently) a judge, WP:NPOL doesn't seem to apply. - Aoidh (talk) 22:00, 11 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 Cricket in Afghanistan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kabul Province cricket team[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: previously converted to a redirect pointing at Kabul Eagles, first by Onel5969 on general notability grounds, then by JML1148 on the basis that no evidence has been provided that this is even a different team from the Eagles. Both times, this decision was reverted by Krishnakrm, who did not provide additional sources to address the other editors' concerns. Absent any secondary source coverage of the team itself, retargeting to Cricket in Afghanistan seems most appropriate, as this page will at least provide the reader with some information about teams in Kabul Province. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and Afghanistan. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're listed as different teams on CricketArchive. Not even linked. Certainly from a quick look at last season's matches, there appears to be very little overlap at all in terms of players. I don't **think** they're the same side. Kabul only competed in one season (2019) in top-level cricket - although they still compete in the Provincial Grade I competition. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if they are different teams, I doubt that the article meets WP:GNG. Anything I can find online seems to be mainly statistics. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regional teams are representing Geographical/Administrative of Afghanistan with each region comprising of a bunch of provinces^[1]. Kabul Province was promoted to act as its own regional team and that stopped after 1.5 seasons. They now play Provincial tournament only. Shpageeza is a franchise tournament with private owners and drafts to sign players like IPL. ^[2]^[3] I am not saying that Kabul Province/Region team should have a page for its own. But Kabul Eagles have nothing to be linked with Kabul Province/Region team. So do the other 5 Shpageeza franchises which have a shared geographical name with the Regional teams. Krishnakrm (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Cricket in Afghanistan Doesn't seem notable enough in itself for an individual page, however the current target is an incorrect one. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are not only different teams but they play different games. Kabul Province is a long form and 50-over side, but Kabul Eagles play 20-20. Whatever happens to this article it should not redirect to Kabul Eagles. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While I appreciate learning more about cricket in Afghanistan, I'd like to know whether some of the editors commenting here support a redirection (which I assume is what is meant by "retargeting"). And, if you don't support either a Redirect or perhaps you don't agree with the redirect target article that is suggested, what do you think should happen here? Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The retarget suggested above sounds reasonable to me in the circumstances Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cricket in Afghanistan.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:17, 14 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 no consensus‎. No point in a third relisting given the lack of new participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thairiyam[edit]

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

The entire article survives on a single production source from The New Indian Express mostly consisting of quotes and a single review from The Hindu while two reliable reviews are needed for films. Behindwoods, Indiaglitz, and Top 10 Cinema are not reliable. DareshMohan (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_353#Sify.com_and_Indiaglitzz says Indiaglitz is not great but acceptable. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 182#Behindwoods.com says Behindwoods may be OK for Tamil films. Nothing says Top 10 cinema is not reliable. Also there's a (one line, but still) assessment at TV guide. So I'd say Keep.— MY, OH MY! (mushy yank)— 13:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough material is there for a 2010 film - a review from The Hindu shows its notability. Other sources that can be added include [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Neutral Fan (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 7 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!} 06:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamalpa Runners[edit]

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

Local club fails WP:ORGCRITE Novemberjazz 17:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks references to support notability and quality. - Indefensible (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As stated, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability, and nothing more I can find but listings. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I guess. Not finding sources that could support much of an article (which is another way of saying this appears to fail WP:NORG). I get 121 exact-phrase hits on newspapers.com, but none of them seem to have very substantial coverage; at most a sentence here and there. I do a little better on GenealogyBank, where the SF papers have a number of substantial features that relate in some way to Tamalpa Runners, but aren't really about the club and more importantly don't provide much information on it (e.g. this piece on a running camp organized by the club). Both newspapers and Google Books are rich in biographies that touch on the club, like this one, but seldom more than a glancing mention of the org. It's clearly a group of considerable antiquity and significance, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are better sources available somewhere, but we can only work with what we have, and I don't think it's quite enough. -- Visviva (talk) 03:08, 9 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 Hare Krishna Singh. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjit Singh Ahir[edit]

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

I went through the article. It definitely fails WP:GNG. Some sources have been used here but most of them just have passing reference of the subject.-Admantine123 (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Admantine123 (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This book mentions the subject as a primary source about Hare Krishna Singh. I've added the information there, so I think a redirect to Hare Krishna Singh is reasonable. If someone finds more sourcing, please ping me and I'll reconsider my vote. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: here is a book that appears to indicate that Ranjit Ram is the same as the Ranjit Baba who is "worshipped in some communities" in Bihar, and gives a few pages of additional information on him. If that's substantiable, I think it could, in combination with the other sources cited, justify an article. But I am not sure how much credence to give to that source. It seems that there may be some additional sources in Hindi, e.g. in this book published by the reputable Rajkamal Prakashan press, but again I cannot effectively evaluate them. -- Visviva (talk) 01:33, 2 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!} 21:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:10, 8 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. The article previously at Draft:Saharasri was identical to this article and had no significant edit history in need of preservation. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saharasri[edit]

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

Too early and not meeting WP:NFF. I would prefer to Draftify but a draft already exists. - The9Man ^(Talk) 19:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @The9Man, I agree its too soon and it has to be moved to draft. DSN18 (talk) 04:56, 1 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!} 21:43, 7 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. With socking and brand new users expressing opinions on this, I have looked closely at the arguments to find the consensus. Much of the keep arguments are assertive or polemic what is policy based has been well challenged. The preponderance of the argument is with delete supported by source analysis that I don't really see as having been refuted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Rhea Debussy[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. The only biographical information comes from magazines published by universities Debussy has attended or worked at.

Other mention of this person in reliable sources are essentially "work related".

Sports Illustrated reported that this person quit their job, writing, "Dorian Rhea Debussy stepped down from their volunteer post at Division III’s LGBTQ One program."

Other sources are just "sound bite" quotations, because this person is Director of External Affairs with Equitas Health, and part of their job is to publish their company's opinion about issues.

Another source, The Buckeye Flame, is cited often, though this is a niche LGBTQ publication serving a small geographic area.

A thorough search yielded little to indicate this person meets our notability criteria, and almost no biographical information in reliable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bibliographies, and Sexuality and gender. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I agree. What coverage there is is minimal and local, and the list of articles (look for it in the history: I removed it because it's basically resume information) does not suggest notability as an academic (look at this, for instance: this does not compare to a publication in a peer-reviewed journal), and so NPROF isn't met either. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--I:I disagree. I'm based in northern Ohio and the Buckeye Flame is a state-wide newspaper for the LGBT community. This makes it seem like it's a local or niche source, when it isn't, and it's a super trusted news source. (I'm also surprised they don't have a wiki page.)
I think many of the concerns brought up in the deletion request really just need to be edited in the article, which it looks like others are starting to work on. There are definitely things to clean up here, but deletion seems hasty, as making edits seems to strike the better balance.
Also as someone who is part of the LGBT community, this person is more well cited than the average trans person with a wiki page. It sort of feels like this request came out of frustration related to the concern about COI editing... 2600:1009:B028:BD24:0:40:BC9A:1001 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's the established editors like Magnolia677 who are frustrated; I think the two or three now-blocked users are frustrated, which caused Bradv to semi-protect the article. Whoever the closing administrator for this discussion is, they are likely seasoned enough to see if any comments came from blocked editors who evaded their block. As for the article, the problem is there are no in-depth sources from reliable secondary sources, and there really is no indication that the Buckeye Flame is of more than local relevance. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Drmies, I'm not sure this matters, but I protected the page in response to a request by Magnolia677. – bradv 18:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was also the one who reported all the socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Politicalnooby/Archive, including several IPs from Ohio. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article also provides links to verifiable sources, such as GLAAD and Athlete Ally, which offer more information about the person. As for the "local" news sources, these are state-wide news outlets like the Columbus Dispatch and The Buckeye Flame. If these do not qualify as reliable sources, they should be dropped rather than deleting the article. This page should not be deleted; it must be given the opportunity to be edited correctly, seeing as past attempts have been made to do so inappropriately. MaxPG88 (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a shame, isn't it MaxPG88, that so many edits are made inappropriately. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources 1–6, 9, 10, 14, 17, 19, and 20 are non-independent N. 11 (Columbus Disp. 1) and 18 (ABC) do not mention them N. 15 (SI) is coverage of a press announcement (WP:NOTNEWS) that doesn't provide sufficient independent material on the subject themselves N. 21 & 27 (NBC4), 22 (BF), 23 (10TV), 24 (Fox28), 25 (OCJ), 26 (Columbus Disp. 2), 28 (WDTN), and 29 (BF) just contain quotes from them in their function as an Equitas Health spokesperson N. 31 (ACLU) is a primary interview N. That leaves only the Buckeye Flame content (sources 7, 8 (non-RS guest commentary N), 12 (non-substantive interview N), 13 (ditto N), 16 (passing mention N), and 32 (passing mention N)) which does not meet the "multiple pieces of SIGCOV in independent secondary reliable sources" requirements of GNG. Also, all independent coverage that isn't trivial is related to their resignation, so fails BLP1E. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do think this article meets the WP:BASIC criteria. While some of the secondary source articles in activism section are associated with her policy work, that’s kind of what many activists do. This could be addressed in editing. This is also in line with other activists who meet the WP:BASIC criteria for that same reason, so it’s not an option to apply a different standard here. The WP:BASIC policy also says that primary sources – as used in some instances here – can also support content {but should not contribute to the grounds of notability}. Also, I think this article meets the WP:ANYBIO policy. This person has been nominated for a NCAA inclusion award multiple times – first in 2019 and again in 2022 after a Google search. Their work on trans athletics also made a “widely recognized contribution” by criticizing the NCAA’s changed policy in 2022, which resulted in multiple media references from reliable secondary source articles. There were multiple other secondary source articles in the archive for the page, but it seems like someone deleted the sources when they deleted a sentence in that paragraph. Other secondary source articles include multiple national and international LGBT sources like PinkNews and Them, in addition to other national sources like Fox News. Regarding names, people are saying older articles, like the one from ABC News and the Dispatch, don’t mention this person. It looks like those articles DO, in fact, mention her, via her former name. {As a reminder, this is a trans person; the former name isn’t mentioned in the article, because of MOS:DEADNAME. However, those secondary source articles can still stand.} Info on that former name could have been determined with a quick search; here’s an article {not cited in the existing article} that shows her change in name: https://www.knoxpages.com/news/first-lgbtq-non-profit-organization-coming-to-knox-county/article_af7c501e-ebdc-11eb-8819-f7b34b40178c.html However, I do NOT think this article meets the WP:PROF category, because of the publications, and I do agree with some of the other folks here on that front. BUT and as mentioned above, I DO think the WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO policy apply here. After looking at the edit history, I think password protection should solve issues with disruptive editing, so the article should be allowed to undergo edits. As a potential solution for the closing administrator on this thread, I’d suggest 1) keeping the page {with password protection} and 2) tagging with Cleanup and/or More Citations Needed to get it fixed. But and since Wiki policy deems “deletion as a last resort”, I think the best overall solution for the closing editor on this thread would be as follows: 1) Revert this article back to the last clean version {02:55, 11 June 2023 seems like a viable option}, 2) Clean up the publications area given that WP:PROF does not apply and adjust as needed because of that, 3) Move this article back to Drafts for editing {that will still stop disruptive edits from IPs}, 4) Let folks work on it {if they’re actually interested, then they can proceed with an account & if they aren’t, then it will be auto-deleted in 6 months anyway}, and 5) Allow it to move through the article approval process anew {which will still ensure another administrator has eyes upon it and which will allow others some well deserved time away from the article}. For what it’s worth, I think it’s important to get this article right, since there are lots of anti-trans folks trying to erase trans people from physical and online spaces this pride month. Hoping folks like the idea of moving back to drafts for editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basketfiend (talk • contribs)

Basketfiend, I see you are a new editor, and wrote on your talk page, "Finally stopped editing from my own IP which I’ve also done for a long time to start an account. Mostly wanted to comment on a deletion thread since it’s a kinda interesting article." Then 10 minutes later, you commented here. So, the only reason you opened your account, was to vote in this discussion? You could have done that as an IP. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the AfC reviewer who accepted this article: please don't send this back to drafts for more editing. I accepted it when it was languishing at the back of the AfC queue. It had at that point already been declined twice and then totally rewritten, and no reviewer wanted to pick it up. Something that complicated or borderline should go to AfD for a wider consensus if necessary, and it has - the time for a decision either way is now, not at some unknown future date when the article is improved. If she isn't found to be notable, no amount of editing will make the article mainspace-ready. If she is found to be notable, and the only problem is the state of the article, please consider stubbing it instead of re-AfC. -- asilvering (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basketfiend, which sources from the history do you think contribute to GNG? I will say that the nomination for the NCAA Division III LGBTQ Administrator/Coach/Staff of the Year award is definitely, 100% not of the "well-known and significant award" calibre expected for ANYBIO (this is for things like Oscar nominees), and anyway internal awards (as an employee of the NCAA) are basically never accepted as sufficient (pinging Pumpkinspyce here too). However, if there is substantial IRS coverage of her in the article history that isn't related to her resignation, she might pass WP:SUSTAINED. JoelleJay (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: see below on other thread Pumpkinspyce (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand the weakness of the sources, being mainly local. However, the number is high, so we are not talking about a single mention, and (barely) sufficient bio information is provided. The article is in good shape. I see no reason to delete at this time. Lamona (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona, the issue isn't that the sources are local, it's that they're mostly either trivial coverage or non-independent. None of the articles that merely quote her can contribute to notability at all, for example (otherwise we would have BASIC articles on every single organization spokesperson and local authority). Which secondary independent sources do you think are actually sufficient? I think source #7 might meet that criterion, and possibly SI, BUT they're both in the context of her resignation, so that would fail the requirement for WP:SUSTAINED coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the question here, and we'd definitely need to look into other sources for this.

I just did a search for other items, and I placed several (8 total) national and independent sources for the sports activism into the article. Sources now include the previous content (which was weak as noted above and in my original comment) and newly sourced articles from: Fox News (US based national news site), Swim Swam Magazine (international swimming magazine), them. (US based national online LGBT magazine owned by Conde Nast), PinkNews (UK based international LGBT news site), INTO (US based national LGBT online magazine), and others. I also found some smaller sources from a regional NPR station and Columbus Dispatch by googling her former name (which is mentioned in a source above), and I'll add those in a moment.

With these additions, I think the article definitely meets the WP:BASIC guidelines. For WP:SUSTAINED, this article doesn't only have "reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event," and there has been coverage outside of one event. Also, WP:NTEMP mentions that "the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline ... does not need to have ongoing coverage"; however, this person has had ongoing coverage which satisfies the requirement for sustained coverage in WP:SUSTAINED and not temporary notability in WP:NTEMP, so the criteria for WP:BASIC are met. So, no reason to delete right now. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To meet SUSTAINED, there must be SIGCOV that is not related to her resignation. All of the secondary independent sources you added are about her resignation. Fox News and The Daily Beast are also not acceptable sources for a BLP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it meets WP:BASIC and WP:SUSTAINED outside of coverage related to the resignation. I don't have further thoughts tbh, but happy that we're working through the process by sharing insights. I also placed a request for edit help on the article's talk page and on the living bios noticeboard, so that will hopefully generate fixes for the article and discussion here. (Time for me to move on though - not trying to get caught on just one larger project right now.) Pumpkinspyce (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pumpkinspyce, what is the coverage "outside" of that related to her resignation? You don't get over the requirement for SUSTAINED coverage by cobbling together passing mentions and NOTNEWS pieces, nor do those meet BASIC. I don't see a single article that even has SIGCOV at all, let alone one that has substantial coverage unrelated to her resignation. JoelleJay (talk) 00:54, 1 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!} 22:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article should be kept per WP:ANYBIO. I worked to clean up neutrality issues. While some sources are weak, it meets coverage requirements. No reason to delete right now. Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 00:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pumpkinspyce: I notice you are a new editor, having made just 26 edits, but you can only vote once. I have also restored the talk page messages you removed from the article, regarding how most of this article was probably written by one person, as well as the COI notice. Not sure why removing this was so important to such a new editor. I'm also not sure how all the low-quality sources you recently added to the article will make this person more notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment here @Magnolia677. New to using an account, but I've been editing Wiki since covid lockdown. (I've also done 65+ not just 25.) I took off that bolding and wasn't sure if I needed it for the comment to "count," but I appreciate you letting me know, so I could remove it.

Thanks for also letting me know about the talk page comments. I thought I was supposed to take those down if the issue was resolved, but I appreciate you catching that. Per WP:TEMPREMOVE, I removed the coi maintenance template, because I think I reasonably fixed the issues. (I'll ping on the talk page for more suggestions on why you want to keep it, but I think @Liz can help adjust when deletion discussion closes.)

RE: You saying this was "so important to a new editor" - my interests are on my userpage. Please take several seats before trying to imply I'm overly interested in any article. (I've been editing for other issues like that in other pages and nominating non-notable things for deletion too.) Please realize folks are just here to edit WITH you (NOT against you). Pumpkinspyce (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GNG seems met based on the sources in the article. The nom's argument appears to depend on excluding RS coverage that is "work related", which does not seem to have any basis in policy and indeed would seem quite counterproductive. Moreover, I am unable to locate any grounds in the above discussion for considering The Buckeye Flame to be unreliable or lacking in independence from the article subject. The claim above that this newspaper is of purely local "relevance" strongly suggests that this is yet another attempt to establish a standard of significance rather than sourceability for articles. Such a standard has no basis in policy and is indeed fundamentally inimical to our reason for being here. The intricacy of the above wikilawyering in favor of deletion, attempting to peel off one RS after another on increasingly tendentious grounds, speaks rather eloquently for itself: if such elaborate reasoning is required, the extraordinary remedy of deletion is almost certainly not warranted. (As a bit of a side note, it is nonsensical to say that an article "fails" ANYBIO, since WP:ANYBIO simply provides a brief list of extraordinary circumstances that may afford a presumption of notability to a biography even in the absence of GNG-compliant sourcing.) -- Visviva (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Top 3 notable things about Debussy are: Has had jobs (but what makes them notable?) Signed a letter? Gotten degrees? Everything significant is "things done as a college student". This should be information on Linkedin or a Resume. It doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO. Denaar (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate further - look at this entry Richard_Bellis. Bellis has been nominated for 3 Emmys, he's was head of the Union for Television and Film Composers... and it's hard to find good sources for the article because he lived his life before the internet. That's what WP:ANYBIO is about - making some room for people who are clearly notable in what they've done, even if we can't immediately find sources for them.

Debussy, in contrast, is currently most famous for resigning from a volunteer position in college. The reason we have lots of small references for Debussy is she went to college during a time where everything is online - that doesn't make her notable. Denaar (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with @Visviva about WP:GNG, since presumption, significant coverage, reliable sources, secondary sources, and independent sources are met. They mentioned that this seems like an" attempt to establish a standard of significance rather than sourceability for articles," which is important to consider. RE: the argument from @Denaar: 1) Debussy did these things AFTER college; she worked at a college starting in '18, which is I think where your confusion is. Basically, your argument that she had significant "things done as a college student" isn't valid; these sources are all after that & 2) There are more than just local sources, including Swim Swam Magazine (international swimming magazine), them. (US based national online LGBT magazine owned by Conde Nast), PinkNews (UK based international LGBT news site), INTO (US based national LGBT online magazine), ABC News (US based national news source), GA Voice (Southern state-wide LGBT news source) Fox News (US based national news source though lower reliability on wiki scale), Sports Illustrated (US based international news source), OutSports (US based national sports source). Pumpkinspyce (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a news story is covered and repeated in 100 stories, and then... it isn't covered again and reanalyzed and continued to be discussed, it doesn't meet the criteria of WP:Event. So far, I see an event that got a lot of mentions in many sources, but wouldn't count as notable on it's own.

Where is the significant, in depth coverage of Debussy in multiple sources? Something that's beyond her name in an article, or a few sentences mentioning her, but where she's the topic of the article?

The only place she is the topic of the article is when she resigned. And that's not a notable event, despite all the coverage, because it was a "one and done" mention in the news. Denaar (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I realized... when you say "presumption, significant coverage, reliable sources, secondary sources, and independent sources"... you're under the mistaken idea that this isn't describing one source having all these features. "Significant coverage in a reliable, secondary, intendent source" - more than one - is the requirement. This topic doesn't meet that criteria. Primary sources never give notability - and the links to things like "instagram" - primary sources, not secondary -isn't helping here. The in depth coverage doesn't meet "independent". Denaar (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since I got tagged back in here, I'll take the liberty of breaking my own "one and done" rule by commenting here again. The first point that jumps out at me from the recent discussion is that what makes her notable already rests on a mistaken equation of notability and significance. Notability is not, has never been, and as long as anything that can rightfully be called Wikipedia endures will never be, a question of significance. It is about whether a stand-alone article should exist, which in the most general case is about sources. On that note, the GNG expressly does not require that the article subject be the topic of the [source] article. In fact, the guideline expressly states that the article subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Here again I can't quite shake the feeling that notability is being used as a stalking horse for significance. Finally, playing notability whack-a-mole by applying the notability criterion for events to one event within a biography is expressly excluded by WP:N, specifically WP:NNC. -- Visviva (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See: WP:SINGLEEVENT WP:PSEUDO - "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event... The general rule is to cover the event, not the person."

Denaar (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found this from the academic deletion sorting list, but WP:PROF does not seem to be in play; instead it is a case for WP:GNG, so we need multiple sources that are in-depth, reliable, and independent. Sources from employers and former schools do not count as independent. In addition, per WP:BIO1E, we need the subject to be notable for more than one thing; it would be ok to have a single in-depth reliable independent source about each of two things, but multiple sources that are all about the same thing are not good enough. The refbombing of the current version of the article with low-quality sources has made the good sources hard to find among all the others. There do exist in-depth reliable and independent sources for one thing, the resignation in early 2022, among which Sports Illustrated clearly meets all criteria. But almost all of the sources that are not about that one thing appear to be non-independent (from employers or former schools), or not in depth (only quoting or briefly mentioning Debussy rather than having in-depth content about her). That is true even if one includes the several sources that refer to Debussy by her deadname, which we cannot use without clarifying in our article why those sources are relevant to Debussy. Of the remaining sources, the only two that look at all promising to me are the last two: one stating the existence of a profile by the ACLU, but with a link target page listing many videos and not mentioning Debussy, and another about some local award given to Debussy, but with no depth of coverage. If there are better sources (maybe a transcript of the relevant ACLU video from which we could judge depth of coverage without having to go through many other irrelevant videos) I might be willing to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 49 sources! And the ones I looked at (I admit that I didn't look at all 49, my eyes started glazing over) are non trivial. I can respect the reasoning of the people who say that some of those sources
- aren't independent - but they're school papers, which just isn't the same thing as a corporate paper writing about an employee, there are plenty of traditions of school papers being quite critical of faculty
- other school papers seem even more independent, for example, https://today.uconn.edu/2021/03/brave-space-timothy-bussey-and-christine-sylvester/ is reasonably indepth and was published when the subject was working for a different school, no longer associated with the school except as an alumnus
- or don't cover a huge area - but Ohio is a state of 11 million, similar to Belgium, twice that of of Holland, surely we'd accept a national newspaper from either of those
- or are about one event - but that one event got coverage from national, independent sources that would meet the above two issues
- or are mainly of interest to the LGBT community - but if they were trade magazines or of interest to another community, say, politicians, or video gamers, or computer programmers, we'd accept them

The main thing is that there are so many non-trivial sources, and since each one needs a different rationale to reject it, after a certain point you have to say "come on now", it's time for WP:IAR. It's pretty clear that "the world" - many different parts of "the world" - know a fair bit indepth about the subject, and as Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of the world's knowledge, we are not improving the Wikipedia by excluding this knowledge. --GRuban (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article you referred to, published in Debussy's university newspaper, is a promotional puff-piece: "hey, look how successful one of our former graduates is!" It even quotes Debussy's dissertation advisor, who is still employed by the university. This source is hardly independent of the subject, as required by WP:REPUTABLE. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban, a large number of the sources do not mention her at all (7), are passing mentions (3), or are just quotes/interviews from her (13 refs). Note that all but one of those refs in the last group are quoting her as a spokesperson for an organization she is in and do not provide any independent coverage. The one that doesn't is a straight video submission from her so is primary and non-independent.
School papers are never independent of people affiliated with the school, including alumni.[11] Non-independent media never count towards notability. That eliminates another 16 refs.
All 10 of the remaining refs are news pieces on her resignation. The fact that she has only been covered in the context of one event by (mostly primary) contemporaneous newspaper articles is precisely why we have BLP1E and NOTNEWS. JoelleJay (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beyond the impressive refbombing, I don't see enough significant secondary coverage beyond their resignation, which in itself was not a mayor event and was more a "minor news of the day". The page should had never been moved to the main space. Cavarrone 07:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look through the article's history, you will see that I carefully removed many of the frivolous and duplicate references, in the hope that what was left might support this person's notability. It was only when I felt the remaining reliable source still did not support notability, that I nominated the article for deletion. It was unfortunate to see a new editor refbomb the article after it was nominated for deletion. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any reliable secondary sources here that are mainly about her, and for notability, you need at least a handful of those. What we have is sourcing that reliably, but merely, shows she exists. That isn't enough.OsFish (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I don't want to see another LGBT person erased from Wikipedia. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Part-time Lecturer, Equitas Health employee, withdrew from NCAA, etc., are all interesting but she's not notable by secondary independent coverage. Easily fails academic criteria, closest for DEI position, but she wasn't the lead in that position, obscure college, etc. We should spend this discussion time making and improving other LGBT subjects instead. What makes her notable above others? If this were included, we'd have precedent to include a billion other sub-notable biographies. Chamaemelum (talk) 03:05, 8 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Party[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. No evidence of notability or notable people involved. Little to notable or credible election results. Little to no credible third party sources. Standing in a high profile by-election does not make a party notable by proxy. doktorb _words^deeds 20:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. doktorb _words^deeds 20:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, and Environment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: using WP:GNG, there's a Guardian article (source #2 in the reflist) that contains significant coverage, written by an independent and reliable secondary source. Source #4 is written by the president of the UK Liberal Democrats, so It probably doesn't meet the GNG requirements for a source. Source #5 is written by a local news website (which I presume to be reliable and independent, and the party is the focus of the entire article). That's two sources that meet WP:SIRS, so I say keep the page. Bwmdjeff (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think the sources listed in the comment above meet WP:SIRS, due to being heavily reliant on quotes from party leadership —siro χ o 01:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bwmdjeff. While both of the cited sources contain some quotes from party leadership (as one would expect), they also contain significant amounts of independent content, so it seems to me that SIRS is met. -- Visviva (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SIRS.2 says Be completely independent of the article subject, emphasis mine. To me that suggests that stories with quotes from organization leadership do not meet the criteria. —siro χ o 09:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(On stumbling back across this conversation:) I don't think a close reading of WP:SIRS bears that out. Elsewhere in the same guideline we read Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (my emphasis). Putting those together would suggest that a source is "totally independent" if it includes (a substantial amount of) opinion/analysis/investigation from a source that is totally unaffiliated with the subject. That makes more sense to me than for a single quote to act as a poison pill, which would be problematic as noted by Indefensible below. -- Visviva (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while the party does present potential implications for future politics, and there are some sources, this doesn't help much. Thorough evaluation is required in this case. BoraVoro (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough coverage to support notability in my opinion, they are reporting on the subject and throwing some quotes in for comprehensiveness. If including any quoted material were enough to break source independence then it would be difficult to have encyclopedic coverage for a subject like politics that is largely based on the quoted material of candidates. - Indefensible (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for another week because there are some questions brought up about the independence of sources. There has also been some sources added since the nomination that should also receive some consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: but change title to Climate Party in United Kingsdom or United Kingsdom Climate Party or similar. --Bduke (talk) 06:47, 8 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 Order of Saint Catherine with Mount Sinai to Saint Catherine's Monastery and delete Poltorzhitsky. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Saint Catherine with Mount Sinai[edit]

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

Hoaxes by indef blocked user Victor Freeknight. Siradan (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article by the same user:

Redirect Order of Saint Catherine with Mount Sinai to Saint Catherine's Monastery. There's at least one reliable source that shows that the order may have existed, and another source (unsure of reliability) that says that their existence in a formal sense is questionable. I'm not able to find enough reliable sources about the order itself to warrant a separate article, but the monastery is certainly notable. ~~I have no opinion on Poltorzhitsky at this time.~~ After looking at Poltorzhitsky I'd be for deleting it per Andrei Romanenko below. The article is a non encyclopedic mess that could use WP:TNT. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The main author was not the only user to contribute to the article and it might have some notability. I am not refined with the sources to consider them to be reliable for GNG, so a redirect seems more appropriate. As for Poltorzhitsky, it just seems to be a translation of the Russian page. I don't know if it's notable for the English article. Conyo14 (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's simpler to delete Poltorzhitsky then to save it. The whole article is googletranslated beginning with its pseudo-English name Poltorzhitsky (instead of original spelling Półtorzycki). This family of Polish nobility with Tartarian roots really existed and the Polish historian pl:Stanisław Dziadulewicz had several pages about it in his seminal Herbarz rodzin tatarskich w Polsce (1929), pp. 255-258 here. But few sentences from this really reliable source are lost in the present article amidst tons of irresponsible ranting. In Russian, however, I had rewritten it into more or less tolerable stub ru:Полторжицкие, if anybody is willing to translate it into English to replace the article under scrutiny - you are welcome. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that context, it might be better as a draft to translate the stub article. Conyo14 (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and definitely a hoax, the only references (outside of the books with no page numbers suspiciously) are the websites of the several of these "orders". Some of their images (like their grandmaster's) are AI-generated too.JamesKnowsJames (talk) 06:33, 14 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!} 22:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of ŠK Slovan Bratislava award winners and top goal scorers[edit]

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

As someone who regularly edits articles related to ŠK Slovan Bratislava, I dare to say that this few (out-of-date and incomplete) information can easily be in the main article and there is no need to create a separate article. Penepi (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 11 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles J. Willoughby Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks the needed SIGCOV. Also does not meet WP:NJUDGE as it currently stands. Let'srun (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Draftify Draftify per this discussion Snickers2686 (talk) 00:04, 9 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judith E. Pipe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:JUDGE. Let'srun (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Draftify Draftify per this discussion Snickers2686 (talk) 00:04, 9 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine E. Oler[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NJUDGE. A case of a article being created WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Draftify Draftify per this discussion Snickers2686 (talk) 00:04, 9 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!} 18:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zachari Logan[edit]

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

I can't find any sources independent of the subject, and most of the article consists of a list of his works. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article looks promo, but I can find enough coverage about him. The first is rather small [12], the rest are better [13], [14] and [15] Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt CBC articles about "Future 40" subjects can be considered independent secondary coverage and say too much about notability, "Future 40" is a contest about promising subjets under the age of 40 from the Saskatchewan province in which every candidate gets coverage in the website. Looking at the winners I see a lot of people who merit appreciation but are in the end low-profile individuals in terms of encyclopedic value. I see participation in such a contest more as a sign that you are not notable rather than the other way around. Also this profile was written by the subject himself, and is apparently copied word for word from his own website. This page seems to me a clear case of WP:TOO SOON. Cavarrone 06:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep numerous works in public collections, prestigious shows and residencies. The article should be rewritten in less pretentious manner Hermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets inclusion if the numerous exhibitions, museum holdings, and references are to be believed. And per Hermann Heilner Giebenrath. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was able to verify another collection. He meets criteria 4 of WP:NARTIST. The article should be kept. Netherzone (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I cleared out the CV aspects of the article and hope it is more encyclopedic now. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Covered in Boston Globe, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The StarPhoenix, etc. APK whisper in my ear 09:17, 10 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!} 18:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Jones Bosier[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NJUDGE and doesn't meet any GNG guidelines. Even if it met NJUDGE, this would be a case of BIOSPECIAL. Let'srun (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Draftify Draftify per this discussion Snickers2686 (talk) 00:05, 9 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!} 18:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Lam Nguyen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was deleted previously for failing WP:JUDGE and it is still the case. This one doesn't pass any WP:GNG guidelines either. Let'srun (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Draftify Draftify per this discussion Snickers2686 (talk) 00:05, 9 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!} 18:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenechukwu Onyemaechi Okocha[edit]

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

Nominee fails WP:GNG and WP:NJUDGE. Even if NJUDGE was reached, this would still be a case of WP:BIOSPECIAL, and as it is this is another case of a page being created WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Draftify Draftify per this discussion Snickers2686 (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft per precedents cited above. BD2412 T 00:45, 9 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!} 18:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PACE Sports Management[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:NCORP. Kleuske (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Management, and Sports. Kleuske (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. The ones I found that were in-depth are mainly about the founder. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References are pointing to the director of the company, not the company itself. No references showed the notability of the company, failing WP:NCORP. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:46, 9 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 Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mink Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEONATURAL which requires that ""information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". BEFORE searched returned only passing mentions in hiking logs and various lists of natural features, none of which provide any information about the lake beyond its location and basic characteristics. –dlthewave ☎ 17:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 17:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park, not notable enough for a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 19:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park: the lake does not pass any notability guideline so it does not deserve its own article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. There is simply not enough information to make an encyclopaedic article about this lake. The nom.'s case is correct, and GEOLAND says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Per Reywas92, this is not notable for a seperate article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Okoslavia (talk) 03:30, 11 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 Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramshead Lake[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEONATURAL which requires that ""information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". BEFORE searched returned only passing mentions in hiking guides (literally "we passed Ramshead Lake") and various lists of natural features, none of which provide any information about the lake beyond its location and basic characteristics. –dlthewave ☎ 16:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 16:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park, not notable enough for a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 19:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I agree with above. --Bduke (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park: the lake does not pass any notability guideline so it does not deserve its own article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. There is simply not enough information to make an encyclopaedic article about this lake. The nom.'s case is correct, and GEOLAND says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Per Reywas92, this is not notable for a seperate article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Okoslavia (talk) 03:31, 11 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 Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talus Lake[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEONATURAL which requires that ""information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". BEFORE searched returned only passing mentions in hiking guides and various lists of natural features, none of which provide any information about the lake beyond its location and basic characteristics. –dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park, not notable enough for a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 19:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agree with above. --Bduke (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park: the lake does not pass any notability guideline so it does not deserve its own article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. There is simply not enough information to make an encyclopaedic article about this lake. The nom.'s case is correct, and GEOLAND says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Per Reywas92, this is not notable for a seperate article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Okoslavia (talk) 03:31, 11 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 Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Taminah[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEONATURAL as no information beyond location and statistics has been shown to exist. The only non-map/database coverage in the article is a brief mention from a climbing guide, however this source just says that it is along a route used by climbers and contains no relevant discussion of the lake itself. A BEFORE search returned only similar passing mentions in hiking guides and the like. –dlthewave ☎ 16:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 16:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park, not notable enough for a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 19:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park per Reywas92. My search came up empty. Google Earth indicates lake is only 5 hectares (13 acres, 0.02 sq mi). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agree with comments above. --Bduke (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park: the lake does not pass any notability guideline so it does not deserve its own article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. There is simply not enough information to make an encyclopaedic article about this lake. The nom.'s case is correct, and GEOLAND says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Per Reywas92, this is not notable for a seperate article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Okoslavia (talk) 03:32, 11 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!} 18:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Holdings Corporation[edit]

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

non-notable holding corporation; the only "sources" listed are external links and I was only able to turn up press releases and the like ~T P W 16:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 16:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails CORP. The only thing I can find is about them opening a restaurant [16]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. --Bduke (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 11 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 Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cirque Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated and "semi-procedurally" kept in 2022 based on the outcome of similar AfDs at the time as well as several "Keep" !votes based on WP:GEOLAND and WP:NEXIST. The article meets neither of these guidelines as NEXIST requires sources that, well, exist and GEOLAND requires sources with "verifiable information beyond simple statistics". The only non-map/database source is a climber's guide which mentions the lake in passing as a landmark on the way to a destination. This isn't SIGCOV and it tells us nothing about the lake itself aside from its relative location. Given the lack of additional coverage, deletion is appropriate in this case. –dlthewave ☎ 16:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 16:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park, not notable enough for a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 19:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google Earth view. Just 25 hectares. Image search turns up free government images of possible future use. "Cirque lake" also refers to a type of lake (a lake in a cirque), so a Google Search turns up many false hits - links to other lakes in cirques.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. There is simply not enough information to make an encyclopaedic article about this lake. The nom.'s case is correct, and GEOLAND says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. The more general article exists and the lake is included in the redirect target. Per Reywas92, this is not notable for a seperate article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:15, 8 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!} 07:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Malhan[edit]

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

Abhishek Malhan is failing WP:NYOUTUBER Nomadwikiholic (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - This article on Abhishek Malhan is not created on the basis of no. of subscribers on YouTube. He has featured on multiple popular news portal for his work like helping needy people, giveaway, pranks and participating in Indian reality show Bigg Boss. The sources are reliable, and provide significant coverage of him. SandeepKumarMeena (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - WP:NYOUTUBER is not a criterion, rather it mentions WP:GNG and WP:ENT as qualifying criteria. The subject disqualifies WP:GNG because despite

The subject having significant and non-trivial coverage by many independent reliable sources ^[4]^[5]^[6] (vide WP:ICTFSOURCES), the attention is not sustained, most of it coming from a recent reality show that the subject is taking part in (vide WP:NSUSTAINED). That being said, it is likely that the subject continues having significant coverage after the reality show has ended, as we have seen with past contestants of the reality show, and the article may be recreated at a later time when it does have sustained coverage. EnormityOP (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://web.archive.org/web/20180305133402/http://www.cricket.af/acb-news-info/446
^ https://cricket.af/post/five-companies-awarded-ownership-rights-of-scl7
^ https://www.mykhel.com/cricket/shpageeza-cricket-league-2021-full-squads-retained-players-captains-of-8-teams-player-draft-owners-173941.html
^ "Abhishek Malhan aka Fukra Insaan says he's not threatened by television actors on Bigg Boss OTT 2: 'TV ka zamana gaya'". The Indian Express. 2023-06-23. Retrieved 2023-06-30.
^ "Bigg Boss OTT 2: "Develop Character, Talent Is Not Everything," Pooja Bhatt Tells Abhishek Malhan". NDTV.com. Retrieved 2023-06-30.
^ "Bigg Boss OTT 2: Abhishek Malhan, Jiya Shankar and Akanksha Puri nominated for eviction, fans call the show 'biased'". Hindustan Times. 2023-06-28. Retrieved 2023-06-30.

Keep. A quick WP:BEFORE demonstrates that this individual meets GNG eg [17][18] —siro χ o 10:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The no 1 news(Outlook) you mention is clearly a paid news as there is mentioned Outlook For Brands. And as per my knowledge paid article is not acceptable. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I saw the source on WP:ICTFSOURCES. !Vote retracted —siro χ o 17:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "who is he" article is fine, but it's barely a paragraph. [19] other people talking about his attitude on the show, doesn't help establish notability. All we have is trivial coverage or descriptions of his time on the show, nothing for notability. Rest are paid or fluff pieces. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as 1E. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 16:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not yet have notability independent of Bigg Boss. The article is woefully under-referenced, but my own search for additional sources that don't talk about him in the context of that programme and might, therefore, help meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE drew a blank. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:57, 12 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 Oskar Braun. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ausgewählte Akten Persischer Märtyrer[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: actually, this has a much bigger internet footprint than I'd expect for a book more than 100 years old. People are still citing it in this century, so I think it must be well-known in its field, and thus notable after all. I don't have more time to go digging right now, but I've added a review to the references on the article. -- asilvering (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This encyclopedia article about Braun says "Finally, Braun’s German translation of select Persian martyr acts (1915), based on P. Bedjan’s edition, should be singled out as another of his works that even after nearly a century has not been replaced and continues to be extremely useful."[20]. If nothing else, we should be able to use this encyclopedia article to create a stub about Braun and redirect the book title to the bio stub. Jahaza (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found another one of his books, reprinted in 2009 by Analecta Georgica, which reprints things that "are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utilized by scholars and proudly owned by libraries." That makes two books at least that are still being cited today despite their age - a clear WP:NPROF pass as far as I'm concerned. I'll start up a stub. No point in keeping this separate article unless someone is planning to expand it, so a redirect as you suggest seems like the best option. -- asilvering (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See: de:Ausgewählte Akten Persischer Märtyrer - much longer article although it relies on the same references. Jahaza has an interesting idea about an Oskar Braun article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agree that an article on Braun seems to be possible with this article merged there, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oskar Braun, which I just created, see comment above. If anyone wishes to fill out the article further, please do go ahead. -- asilvering (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m cool with a redirect. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oskar Braun per discussion above. Many thanks to @asilvering!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:44, 12 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!} 18:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royston Arts Festival[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NEVENT. UtherSRG (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Music, Visual arts, Events, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Royston,_Hertfordshire#Popular_culture where it's mentioned. However if consensus evolves that that's not a good ATD, suggest trimming the mention there. Star Mississippi 17:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Switching to delete, per the below. Didn't realize it wasn't an existing mention. Star Mississippi 18:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mention there was added by the original author of this article. Given they probably have a COI, I'd lean towards full removal. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, should have checked that history. Makes sense to remove then as I find no other indication it is large enough to merit a mention. Star Mississippi 18:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Royston,_Hertfordshire: The coverage which can be found is local in scope and I agree that it cannot demonstrate sufficient notability for an article, but I do think that the inclusion of the information (supported by sources around Creative Royston and affiliated organisations, as well as the local council [21]) enhances the understanding of the town's cultural activities. The information would be better distinguished in an Amenities section though, rather than "Popular Culture" which tends to be a collection of minor associations. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable organization's promotional fluff. We must be cautious before recommending addition of trivial contents into a location page like town/city. Graywalls (talk) 23:47, 9 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 14:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughn Lowery[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. Subject was featured in a commercial 20+ years ago and is now apparently a journalist of no particular encyclopedic notability since. Every source I can find is redolent of WP:PEACOCKery. It is offputting that his byline includes a link to this article. Julietdeltalima (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Television, Advertising, Michigan, and New York. Julietdeltalima (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not meeting ACTOR. Could perhaps create an article about the Boxer Boogie meme, it has ample coverage in decent sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 7 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. ✗plicit 14:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of actions by Major Singh Johal[edit]

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

Flowery language used, created for a person with no article, otherwise non-notable. No sourcing I found discussing these military operations. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page has many sources, but I suppose the main problem is that they are all in Punjabi so it would be hard to find information in English. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I mentioned it is a notable subject in Punjabi works. It is discussed in english works, but not in a whole lot of detail. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem is not the language of the sources but that all the sources on which the bulk of the article is based are penny-press martyr literature. By citing their claims in wikipedia voice the article ends up portraying the activities of a member of a designated terrorist organization as "battles" that resulted in "Sikh victories". Unless scholarly sources have covered the subject, Major Singh Johal, in significant detail wikipedia should not have an article on him or his attacks. See my earlier comment on a similar genre of sources being used by the same article creator about a similar terrorist/martyr; if this a a recurrent problem, CTOP sanctions may be needed. Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but I will like to point out Ajit (newspaper) which I used extensively throughout the page isn’t one of those glorifying books. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare Would using sources favourable of militants in moderate use be fine? Or using it in collaboration with reliable sources. As they are used in Surinder Singh Sodhi. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not just bias but the quality of sources. The heydays of the Khalistan movement in the 80's is a well studied topic with literally 100s (possibly 1000s) of scholarly/journalistic books and peer-reviewed articles. So if content in a related topic cannot be sourced to comparable secondary sources, wikipedia should not have an article on it. What are the three best sources for Major Singh Johal? Note that, if a source is not stocked by quite a few libraries (check worldcat.org), or indexed by jstor.org or similar repository, it is unlikely to be suitable. Abecedare (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this is a redundant question, but just so I'm understanding correctly, are the aggregates of reports from newspapers sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes? For example, if a person was reported somewhat periodically in sources like the New York Times or Washington Post, but is absent or only marginally reported in academic books or journals, would that get the green light? CanadianSingh1469 claims Major Singh Johal was covered extensively by the Ajit newspaper. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"ਖਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ ਲਿਬਰੇਸ਼ਨ ਫੋਰਸ ਦੇ ਖਾੜਕੂ ਮੇਜਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੌਹਲ ਪਾਲਾ ਨੇ ਸਾਇਨਾਈਡ ਨਾਲ ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਨੂੰ ਮਾਰਿਆ" [Khalistan Liberation Force militant Major Singh Johal Pala killed himself with cyanide.]. Ajit (in Punjabi). May 15, 1991. pp. 3–4. Somewhat obvious why it is reliable. From a known and trusted news network.

History of Shaheed Bhai Major Singh Johal Alias Pala, Khalistan Liberation Force. Writer - Ranjit Singh Student Damdami Taksal, Sikh Youth Federation Bhindranwala Extracts from Fatehnama publication. Publsiher Fatehnama. A well known publisher that has published works by Dr. Sukhpreet Singh Udoke. The author is also a head of a Sikh political body associated with Damdami Taksal.

ਅਮਰ ਸ਼ਹੀਦ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਜੰਟ ਸਿੰਘ ਬੁੱਧਸਿੰਘਵਾਲਾ Published by Damdami Taksal. A well known Sikh institution.

CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources are close to acceptable for this topic. See my talkpage comment about newspaper reports for a topic such as this one. And I have already explained why generic martyr literature like the other two "sources" you list is not usable. Abecedare (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare Using Ajt should I add the contents of this page to the actives section of Khalistan Liberation Force? (Note I added some previously) CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CanadianSingh1469: Lets discuss that at Talk:Khalistan Liberation Force. By the way, per this source you cited, the list of "actions" are claims taken from a secret personal diary kept by Major Singh Johal, and not verified attacks or killings. Abecedare (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems contradictory to all other sources. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a secret personal diary the source isn’t fully true. If you read the full thing it doesn’t say that is the only source. It talks about getting the information from his family and that Johal has listed all of it in his own writing as well. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't ask for popular publishers, it sets it gold standard on academic publishers which implement and utilize peer review from experts and specialists in their respective fields. Fatehnama may be a popular publisher which majority of the Punjabi population may be well acquainted with, but it is not an academic publisher. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has published academic works such as those by Dr. Sukhpreet Singh Udoke and others. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Abecedare put it quite well — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreliable and unotable sources make up the bulk of the article's references. The article's creation in the first place is simply part of an unfortunate trend we're seeing on Wikipedia to valourize a particular religious group to the maximum extent possible, with facts and neutrality being relegated to the periphery. Fabricating numbers on the opposite belligerent side to present in the most negative light possible is a common occurence. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this is occurring. The creator of the article has used many sources for his statistics, they do not seem to be fabricated. I do not believe that "facts and neutrality are being relegated to the periphery" Usingh0663 (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most egregious violations in this article which I did not mention, but Abecedcare did, is that it's simply a compilation of the terror attacks perpetrated by the subject; if the attacks resulted in death and destruction and the unscathed evasion of the perpetrators and their accessories, it is termed as a "Sikh victory". This is simply preposterous. Even the supposed murder of 2 Shiv Sena workers on grounds of blasphemy is termed as a Sikh victory. These incidents are terrorist attacks and illegal activities, not battles or anything akin, so at the very least the table format is inappropriate which serves only to valourise a religious group and present them as having inflicted numerous defeats on a nation they've been at odds with.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to entirely changing the formatting and language. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to hear and will definitely ameliorate some of the issues in the article. Abecedcare and DaxServer can hopefully shed more light on whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is covered in Punjabi newspapers of the time. Johal is not mentioned in English works. Some of the things he did do bare a passing mention. @Abecedare @DaxServer CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You still firm on delete or has your opinion changed? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Abecedare, the sources in this article are not reliable and he strongly suggests the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. My stance as of now is contingent upon Abecedare's reply and possible recommendations. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean Ajit which is used frequently is definitely reliable. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can amend the language to present a more objective article, for example, by replacing "Sikh Victory" with "Militant Victory" among other changes Usingh0663 (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary fork more than adequately covered on Khalistan Liberation Force if any of these purported actions can be reliably sourced. Mztourist (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Abecedare.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as above.150.129.164.94 (talk) 14:17, 9 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. ✗plicit 14:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Huwe[edit]

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

Non-notable secretary of the political party, flowery language for submitting laws to another person to get passed. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Oregon. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete refs include LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. The only RS source is a routine article in the local news about the subject declaring himself as a candidate. Also borders on meeting WP:G11-speedy deletion criteria given its promotional nature. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local political candidate. JTtheOG (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable candidate for political office, there's only one reference that's any good at all and that's a candidacy announcement. Reads like a CV. SportingFlyer T·C 13:57, 11 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. ✗plicit 14:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baldev Batra[edit]

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

No proof found of an award won, seems un-remarkable otherwise, simply doing his job. Vaguely PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promotional article, sources are press releases or self-published article, nothing to support WP:GNG for this person. Ravensfire (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 16:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okoslavia (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a normal, though high achieving, doctor. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per mom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:36, 13 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. ✗plicit 14:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trak Only[edit]

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

Non-notable company, supported only by a press release sourced to an otherwise RS. Would speedy this but wanted this to be an example of how press releases in India are being used for RS, currently in discussion over at the RS noticeboard. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. Qcne (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only source I found that would come close to WP:ORGCRIT was from The Telegraphy but upon closer examination is a sponsored post.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage mainly seems to be press releases as noted above, https://sportsmintmedia.com/tamil-thalaivas-prolong-association-with-trak-only-as-kit-partner/ might be independent though. - Indefensible (talk) 06:17, 11 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. There was not sufficient support to redirect this page to the parent article. ✗plicit 14:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Miller in the 1946–47 Australian cricket season[edit]

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

Prosified statistics which violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, per precedent in previous similar AfD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article should never have been created, let alone promoted to FA. St Anselm (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources in the article do not specifically mention this season in Miller's career, and the article does not mention what is particularly notable about this season of play. Under WP:MERGEWHAT I do not think this information can be incorporated into Keith Miller, as the Miller article already suffers from bloating. Z1720 (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per above. (t · c) buidhe 14:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the wiki-reasons already noted. And what leads to those issues is that it is far too narrow of a topic. And creation of such creates a coatrack/green light for inclusion of far too much low level detail. Which points to a good way to deal with it if deleted. Merge the key info into the player article (when not already there) and leave out the rest. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How could the article stay for so many years and even promoted to FL?? WP:NOTSTATS. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Consensus in previous discussions is for these articles to now be deleted, as they no longer have a place in 'modern' Wikipedia. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads as an elongated summary of the 1946–47 season, which isn't appropriate for an article. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet more Keith Miller related fandom articles.... Delete for all the reasons highlighted above, not a reasonable search term, so no point redirecting. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and let it WP:SNOW. ミラP@Miraclepine 15:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keith Miller, not because I personally think the title is a likely search term, but because a future editor might find the contents and references useful, possibly after reducing the size of the main article. I think the article is a WP:CONTENTFORK but not a POV one. I would not have commented here except I find myself seriously out of sympathy with nearly all the above arguments. Hardly anything by way of deletion rationale has been presented above so I find hardly anything to rebut and I shall merely pass some comments. (N) Prosified statistics are not deprecated, indeed WP:INDISCRIMINATE says the problem is with "statistics that lack context or explanation": this article provides both. Also when "statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article" splitting is recommended: this article was created as a split from Keith Miller. The article is nothing like a list, not even a "prosified" one. The "precedent" in the previous AFD was a thoroughly bad precedent. (D1) The article should never have been created (or promoted): no reasons given. (D2) Sources in the article do not specifically mention this season in Miller's career: the biographies make extended mention, sources are not required to be exclusively about the topic. (D3) "As above" gives no rationale for either deletion or redirection. (D4) The rationale given is for merge, not delete. (D5) Off topic. (D6) What is more unusual these days is to have an article on a historical topic (Miller died several years before the article was created) but now we focus on current affairs. Otherwise this sort of article has become more prevalent over time, so seemingly does still have a place. For examples see these navboxes for links to "modern" articles about current tennis players' seasons:

v t e Men's tennis player seasons: 1998–2009
Roger Federer	Juniors 1998–2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Rafael Nadal	2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Novak Djokovic	2008 2009
Juan Martín del Potro	2009

v t e Men's tennis player seasons: 2010–2019
2010	Federer Nadal Djokovic
2011	Federer Nadal Djokovic
2012	Federer Nadal Djokovic Murray
2013	Federer Nadal Djokovic Murray
2014	Federer Nadal Djokovic Murray Wawrinka Čilić
2015	Federer Nadal Djokovic Murray Wawrinka
2016	Federer Nadal Djokovic Murray Wawrinka
2017	Federer Nadal Djokovic Murray Wawrinka
2018	Federer Nadal Djokovic del Potro
2019	Federer Nadal Djokovic

v t e Men's tennis player seasons: 2020–present
2020	Nadal Djokovic Thiem
2021	Nadal Djokovic Medvedev
2022	Nadal Djokovic Medvedev Alcaraz
2023	Djokovic Medvedev Alcaraz
2024	Djokovic Medvedev Alcaraz Sinner

(D7) I have sympathy with this though it isn't much of a reason for deletion. (D8) Likely search term is not the only reason to have a redirect (WP:ATD-R, WP:R#DELETE). (D9) no new rationale.

In conclusion, I hope this doesn't sound too harsh. I think what has happened is that the contributors above are, on editorial grounds, so certain we should not have this article that they didn't realise they were not providing policy or guideline based deletion rationales. Thincat (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat: Re your D2 comment above: I agree that sources exclusively mentioning a topic are not necessary. However, I also struggle to determine what makes this player's individual season particularly notable that it passes WP:GNG; to me, the sources and the article do not demonstrate significant coverage of this player's individual season. As for your tennis example: I think a tennis player's season is more comparable to a football team's season, as tennis is mostly an individual sport and thus a year of play for a tennis player is their season. Cricket is a team sport, and as such the teams are more likely to have individual season articles, and less likely for individual players to also have individual season articles. Z1720 (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also strongly support a redirect as an ATD - part of a policy, not a guideline. The attribution and sourcing can be preserved that way and it's an obvious alternative. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessive detail for 1 season. Fancruft. LibStar (talk) 09:58, 14 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. ✗plicit 14:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Fourth of July mass shootings, 2023[edit]

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

Seems unreasonable SYNTH, shootings in the USA that are otherwise unconnected. Simply taking place over a long weekend (and extending the criteria to days before and after) seems like a stretch. No media discuss them together as an event. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Conyo14 (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete per nom. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Artificial construct. Given the number of mass shootings in the US, you could choose any date on the calendar and there would be numerous shootings on or about that date. WWGB (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And moreso on days when people drink and socialise a lot. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I suppose any terroristic activities on a country's independence/confederation/constitution day is completely irrelevant? Jaiquiero (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could start an article called American April Fools Day mass shootings, 2023 and populate that too. In fact, I could start one for any day of the year and fill it. It does not change the fact that shootings around 4 July are no more notable than any of the other 364 days. And just because any punk can pick up a gun and start shooting does not make then a "terrorist". WWGB (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with your stance but is a mass shooter not a terrorist? I mean I guess it depends on the defintion. But yeah we should delete the article. Don'taskwhyImadethis (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A terrorist uses violence and fear to seek political or ideological aims. These gun thugs have no such aims. No, they are not terrorists. It's becoming one of the most overused words in the English language. WWGB (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't even mass shootings, you have some listed as ONE person, the highest number is five. This isn't a mass shooting event, it's a bunch of random crimes lumped together. One person getting shot isn't NEWS. Oaktree b (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't terror activities, these are regular gun crimes in the USA. Oaktree b (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This sort of topic was already discussed with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Chicago memorial day weekend shootings, so there's precedent for this too. Corgi Stays (talk) 19:00, 8 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. ✗plicit 14:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camara Namory[edit]

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

Very few results for either spelling of the name, could not find anything significant - fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are some non-English language sources but not enough significant secondary coverage to warrant an article. Chamaemelum (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:35, 8 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. ✗plicit 14:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpana Saxena[edit]

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

Non-notable policewoman. A Deputy Commissioner is not considered notable enough by our standards. Is notable for WP:ONEVENT when she was attacked by her colleagues. Fails WP:N due to lack of any other reliable resources discussing her. Also to be noted is that the article was created by a sockpuppet. Jupitus Smart 12:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Jupitus Smart 12:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure of WP:N. Qcne (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable position held, the "event/attack" seems unimportant for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 11 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. ✗plicit 14:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chiragh Kush[edit]

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

As far as I can work out this is SYNTH/OR/hoax territory. Massively over-cited (118 citations in all, some sentences having ten or more citations), conflating all sorts of religious libels under one banner (an Iranian phrase that appears to actually mean a shameful work or deed done in the dark), this odd and sweeping bunch of seemingly unconnected assertions needs to go - perhaps one day to be replaced by something cogent and well put together, who knows? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Religion, and Iran. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks to be a copy-paste job from these two third party wikies. 1 and 2. Qcne (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: at best, it needs a little TNT. Chamaemelum (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - page does not exist on the Farsi (Persian) Wikipedia.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft We need better sourcing about this. Seems like it could be notable, but wow TNT first. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the author of the page and I have to disagree that page should not be deleted.

It is not original research as the first citation mentioned Chiragh Kush as legitimate name by scholars in the source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13173/zeitdeutmorggese.164.1.0129

Citation 58 and 59 also connects with the libel used in Roman times with the Ottoman times as the Ottoman did use the term Chiragh Kush. So it is not a random unconnected synthesis.

Also I did not copy those info from other wikis since most of those other wikis are fandom based and the fact that are almost no info about the topic I could have copy from.

Also for why the page does not exist in Persian Wikipedia, the Ottomans, Indian Muslims and Central Asians used the Persian language as a literay language and they are the one mainly wrote the Chiragh kush, not the Iranians themselves. Yaujj13 (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should have put the deletion sorting for Wiki project Turkey instead of Iran as for my reason in the last paragraph. Yaujj13 (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Yaujj makes some valid points in their response, and others should read it. However, the conflation here is way too much. Either the concept is Chiragh Kush and it refers to a type of libel in the Islamic world, or a broader concept needs to be found. Just because the Muslim-Persianate concept has a somewhat direct relationship with the Christian concept, does not require their conflation, and definitely not under the name Chriagh Kush. It is also oversourced, but that can be fixed a lot more easily. Uness232 (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify due to multiple problems such as excessive citations/sources and unclear focus. The article needs thorough editing to solve issues including the use non-RS, and possibly synthesis and original research. Aintabli (talk) 14:37, 13 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. ✗plicit 14:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Frieda[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this last time and it ended in a no-consensus so I'm nominating the subject again for further discussion. Fails WP:NACTOR as only had a significant role in a single film. Fails WP:GNG as most of the sources fail WP:SIGCOV. The ones that don't are interviews which fail independence according to established consensus. Imcdc Contact 12:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Imcdc Contact 12:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Being Lulu's son doesn't help, either. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two bit parts aren't enough for ACTOR, rest seems routine coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 7 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. ✗plicit 14:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zafem[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND, no credible assertion of notability, no chart position for music (itunes is not a chart) - an article full of redlinks, puffery ("The reaction of the public to this new album was euphoric") and unsourced content. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Haiti. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Qcne (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is PROMO. Usual cohort of streaming sites and social media found, can perhaps revisit after they set the world on fire with their tour. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this announcement for an upcoming club tour by the band in America and the Caribbean, and even one gig in Africa. Coincidentally, that tour starts tomorrow; but not-so-coincidentally, it was announced two days before this WP article was created. That leads me to suspect that this article is part of a multi-media promotional scheme. Good luck to them and maybe the tour will generate some media coverage that can support an encyclopedic article. But until/unless that happens, it is too soon because they have not yet progressed beyond the usual streaming services and social media promotions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article should not be deleted. Yes It should be corrected. Zafem is a popular haitian band with chart entry on Billboard (https://www.billboard.com/music/chart-beat/billboard-charts-first-timers-wunderhorse-dr-teeth-and-the-electric-mayhem-1235330858/).It deserves a wikipedia article. Fanisepetiote (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True but that is just one minor accomplishment so far and the Wikipedia rules for musician notability only say that someone may be notable with such accomplishments, but not definitely. There will be no problem with a new article if they become better known in the future. Meanwhile here is a a different link to Billboard in case the one above is broken. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it's a "minor" accomplishment is highly subjective and sentimental and not knowing the dimension of the group.Besides the article on Billboard , the group have many articles from very reliable and respected medias like Yahoo , Le Nouvelliste , Ayibopost, Tracetv etc.I've looked at the criteria for musicians and ensembles , they're met. Contribute to the article instead of trying to delete. Build instead of detroy. 37.10.24.7 (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out that saying it's better than a minor accomplishment is also "highly subjective and sentimental". What matters here is Wikipedia's rules on notability and their interpretation as editors search for a consensus. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If your are contesting a Billboard-charted,one the most popular haitian bands notability you have to prove point by point how to the group is not notable. For now your statement is false unless wikipedia belongs to you and you make the rules. Fanisepetiote (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone here can click a few fields and see that you are the creator of Zafem's article and you have done very little on Wikipedia outside of that article and this debate. Therefore you have a certain non-neutral perspective, which is okay if you could avoid resorting to accusations. You can also take the opportunity to learn more about Wikipedia's practices. More specifically, I do not have to "prove" anything; instead I made a contribution to the community's consensus process and do not care if the consensus does not match my own opinion. Also, I did not make the rules. Several hundred Wikipedia editors made them by consensus over a couple of decades. See the musician notability rules and click the "History" tab. And to think, I actually wished Zafem luck way up above. I have nothing against them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again,you're making subjective and uninformed assumptions. I've also created the article" Petit Seminaire College Saint-Martial both the english and french version. Both articles were well received by wikipedians and well-edited over the years. This was not little . This was a huge contribution to wikipedia , creating 2 articles about one the most popular haitian school. I am not related to Zafem , I created articles about popular haitians.

Based on your logic,you should also try to delete Petit Seminaire College Saint-Martial since it seems to be not notable enough for you. Fanisepetiote (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I might offer you some advice, @Fanisepetiote, I'd walk away right now and let the temperature drop and the consensus process work itself out. TBH, I'm not sure you're doing yourself any favours by continuing to wrangle with editors at this AfD... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention honestly to get into this fruitless debate. I created my first wikipedia article in 2014 and I've read the criteria for musicians notability.Zafem checked a lot of boxes there.The band has already a french wikipedia article (already published ) which I did not create but contributed that has way more sources and edits that my english version. Zafem has enough sources to prove its nobability. Some editors needs to research before they make false assumptions. Fanisepetiote (talk) 13:45, 13 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. ^Complex/_Rational 13:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Langtry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not a trace found in reliable sources. ~~Even the source cited (War graves commission) appears to have no record of this soldier.~~ Kleuske (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United Kingdom. Kleuske (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here he is on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Qcne (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Overlooked that one. Stricken. Kleuske (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  now that we have reliable sorces could you please remove the articles for deletion sticker thanks JohnStevens1919 (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Just wondering if you have a personal connection to the Langtry family, @JohnStevens1919, as you also created J. M. Langtry. I'm not fully sure James Langtry meets the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) either :( Qcne (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry. The poor man still fails WP:GNG. Kleuske (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and here https://uk.forceswarrecords.com/record/735140244/langtry-charles-soldiers-died-in-the-great-war-1914-1919 JohnStevens1919 (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable, I'm afraid. Just one of countless soldiers who served in WWI with honour but without any notability. And he received the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal at the age of 19? I don't think so. The clue is in the name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
49 he was a The Royal Hospital Chelsea Pensioner when the war broke out JohnStevens1919 (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

he was born 1870 and died 1918 at the age of 49 JohnStevens1919 (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the article claims he received the medal in 1889! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject does, indeed, fail WP:GNG and we also have WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.yeoviltown.com/warmemorial/worldwar1.aspx charles langtry yeovil war memorial JohnStevens1919 (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JohnStevens1919, I ask again if you have any connection to the Langtry family? If so you really need to declare your Wikipedia:Conflict of interest immediately. Qcne (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that is because you are not historians of just have old fashion views about our national history ... you should speak first with the royal british legion

In 1914, Sir Fabian Ware, the commander of a mobile unit of the Red Cross on the Western Front, felt driven to find a way to ensure that the final resting places of the dead of the Great War would not be lost forever. He and his unit began recording and caring for all the graves they could find. By 1915, their work was given official recognition by the War Office and incorporated into the British Army and in 1917 the Imperial War Graves Commission was established by Royal Charter.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/partnerships/mapping-the-centenary/projects/the-commonwealth-war-graves-commission-the-first-world-war JohnStevens1919 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please elucidate, yes or no, if you have a connection to the Langtry family. Qcne (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth is the establishment of the IWGC at all relevant to the notability of this one man? And many of us here are historians, including military historians. Please explain why this one soldier in particular should be notable? Or do you think all WWI veterans are notable? That would be a lot of people! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Solder doing soldierly stuff isn't notable. Nothing terribly outstanding about his record from what I'm reading. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, his medals aren't notable. Everyone that showed up and made it back home got one of these. I don't want to call them participation trophies, but everyone got one of them for serving. Earning a Victoria Cross or something similar would make him notable, this individual just went to war, managed to stay alive, got a handshake and a thank you for your service medal and went home. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible claim of notability. The War Medal and Victory Medal were given to everyone who joined up, and the memorial plaque to the family of everyone who died. (I pause to remember my great uncle Jack, who was killed on 12 October 1917.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 11 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 as promotional and non-notable. ^Complex/_Rational 13:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ATHLYT[edit]

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

Created by a blocked UPE. Fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find evidence of notability at this time.

Qcne (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Schools. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, also WP:SERIESA. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Can we G11 this? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Undo AFD comments Mercenf!** Should be noted that the nominator is being looked at as part of a paid editing ring which is extorting another page' subject at the deletion discussion for Malcolm Collins (author). The nominator has also just changed his name since being accused. several of his articles were tagged and nominated including Dubai Creek Country Club and all the tags were removed with no valid explanation. They are also attacking a clearly notable israeli company called Artlist. several of his ring's articles were tagged and nominated including Dubai Creek Country Club and all the tags were removed with no valid explanation. Paul L. CARON, Al Suhub Rest House, WAHL clippers, al Bait hotel 47.181.166.72 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  On second thought, I still think it's enough to G11 but I suppose it could be better to let things run the full 7 days. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  KEEP: Deleting an article about the only notable NIL company that works with Historically Black Colleges & Universities in the news (Google them and NIL and HBCU and multiple articles appear) seems targeted. They have been mentioned as official NIL partner of an HCU athletic conference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Coast_Athletic_Conference as listed on their official page https://www.gcaconf.com/general/2022-23/releases/20221011_ATHLYT_and_Urban_Edge_Network_Team_Up_To_Offer_NIL_Opportunities_to_the_Gulf_Coast_Athletic_Conference and with Grambling State University https://www.si.com/college/hbcu/swac/grambling-confirmed-ground-breaking-nil-deal Hamilstonhusky (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sole contribution of the above user to Wikipedia is this AfD vote. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: UPE and nn per nominator; violates WP:PROMO policy which can be considered more critical than the GNG guideline anyway. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First NIL program to pay every player on a college team. Plenty of references.. If it goes bankrupt in 2 years and becomes irrelevant than maybe it gets deleted but they are doing exciting work! 135.148.233.107 (talk) 03:27, 11 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. ^Complex/_Rational 13:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IntelliTrack[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not able to find significant coverage in third party sources, therefore fails notability.

Qcne (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Main coverage is Delano, leaning delete.

Chamaemelum (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good grief, fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP. Sourcing is woeful, company not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:06, 7 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 Draftified‎. Article creator has already draftified it, so no need to continue discussing for now, pending AFC etc. process. — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajaa Mekouar[edit]

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

WP:ROTM private equity investor. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above. Qcne (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 7 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. ✗plicit 14:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Savitha Nambrath[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable sound designer. The coverage is based only on mentions. It fails to meet the criteria set by WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as I cannot find significant independent coverage. Qcne (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:12, 14 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. This deletion will be memorable. ^Complex/_Rational 13:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elections and Referendums[edit]

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

So tautological it's funny. Kleuske (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Unnecessary disambiguation pages, though it isn't a real disambiguation special page? Qcne (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary.Godtres (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly the most pointless page I've ever seen. Athel cb (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. and others, clearly unnecessary and pointless. Sal2100 (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above and tidy. --Bduke (talk) 07:15, 8 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. ✗plicit 14:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Singh Rathore[edit]

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

Created by someone with a WP:COI. The article from Indian Express is marked as "EXPRESS FEATURES SERVICE" and others are brief mentions. The award he received is reserved for students. This clearly fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as I cannot find significant independent coverage Qcne (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, sourcing is terrible and we have no RS here (and none to be found 'out there', either, although there's apparently a dentist in Noida of that name). What IS a 'sound designer' anyway? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of WP:SIGCOV. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 16:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okoslavia (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Film Awards in India are awarded by the government of India, rather than any private organization. Furthermore, these awards are presented by the President of India. The award can be won by an experienced person or even a student, if they have excelled in their film work. Link to the government of India's website about it:

[22]https://www.dff.gov.in/NFA.aspx

Links about 55th National Film Awards, Ajit's name is mentioned in the list of winners:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/55th_National_Film_Awards

Times of India: [23]https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/movie-awards/national-awards-winners/2007/108

What is a Sound Designer?

A Sound Designer is responsible for crafting the sound elements in a film. Every scene requires meticulous sound design to enhance the viewer's experience, even capturing the subtlest of sounds, such as a pin dropping. Sound Designers are credited in every film that is produced.

Reference to Sound Design: Sound design

Reference to another Sound Designer who is an Academy Award (Oscar) winner: Resul Pookutty

Regarding the mention of a dentist in Noida who shares the same name, it is common for multiple individuals across the world to have similar names.

Hope this helps. Amitsrathore (talk) 14:06, 13 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. UPE by a sockpuppeteer. We need waste no more time here. Courcelles (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Luxuré[edit]

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

Declined at WP:AFC moved from draft by creator, not notable, fails WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable awards, minimal coverage, probably WP:TOOSOON.-KH-1 (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ANYBIO, insufficiently strong sources to bear the weight of an otherwise clearly non-notable individual. SN54129 12:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Delete’’’ per nom. 2600:1011:B132:66F2:A54B:E832:312D:4C1C (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No chart position, no awards of note, no enduring contribution. Lack of coverage = fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not (yet) notable, insufficient coverage, perhaps WP:TOOSOON as KH-1 suggests.
Also concerning that the page creator has just been indeffed for promotion/spam, after removing the article's AfD tag with this edit-comment:
This Wikipedia article's Content, Formatting and Additional sources were approved by published ghostwriters and individuals of multiple Wikipedia writer's agencies. This article is anonymously being watched by 117 article writers.
– .Raven .talk 13:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment - Note that the article's creator, Freeman020203, has also created this category which should be deleted too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:04, 7 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. ^Complex/_Rational 12:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An Tae-hyok[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG Simione001 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find a reason for notability and I cannot find a source that has a bio about him, only sources that include him as a player that was on the roster. Ultimately, fails WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A search for 안태혁 also returns nothing. Article doesn't show notability and to the best of my ability, I could not find it online. :3 F4U (they /it) 04:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to its lack of substantial content and inability to demonstrate the subject's notability in terms of significant coverage, achievements, or impact on the sport --Loewstisch (talk) 08:21, 13 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. ^Complex/_Rational 12:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An Yong-mu[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG Simione001 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find a reason for notability. Additionally, I cannot find a source that has a bio about him, only sources that include him as a player that was on the roster. Fails WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A search for "안용무" also found no sources. No sign of notability in the article or elsewhere. :3 F4U (they /it) 04:31, 9 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 14:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khoziain[edit]

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

OR about a Russian dicdef which simply means "owner" or "boss" - Altenmann >talk 07:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or cross-wiki merge to Wiktionary Chamaemelum (talk) 08:50, 7 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!} 00:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Lancini[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:COMPOSER or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 30 June 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, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS presented to pass WP:GNG, let alone get to WP:MUSICBIO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:30, 7 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!} 00:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Cruz (Nip/Tuck)[edit]

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

The article has no sources, and a quick Google search gives little sources to show notability. Spinixster (chat!) 12:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 12:42, 30 June 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, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into the show's page. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, so all original research? Would be better for the Fandom wikia, not Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 08:58, 7 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!} 00:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Germela[edit]

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

WP:NCORP - does not meet; Could not find reliable sources Edit.pdf (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Qcne (talk) 08:57, 7 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. A consensus to Keep but Rename but no consensus on what the new page title should be. Please discuss this on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bus plunge[edit]

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

Short article on an obscure print media trope/in-joke. Cites only three sources: First one is not about the subject (just an example of a "bus plunge" headline); second is some rando's webpage so obviously not WP:RS; and third is a Slate piece, which is RS. Is only one reliable piece of coverage enough to meet WP:GNG? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Slate is ok; I can't find confirmation of this trope, but the NYT seems to have a history of using certain tropes, such as cat news [24]. Could perhaps merge to a section about "Tropes in the New York Times" in the article about the newspaper? Oaktree b (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (added: possible rename per below conversation) This seems to be a notable phenomenon. I've added a couple sources, and a very minor expansion, and these sources could very much help expand article further as well. Specifically:
- A Jalopnik piece written by a then-yet-to-be editor-in-chief (much of G/O media inlcuding Gizmodo, A/V Club, Quartz are generally considered reliable, though some are mixed, per WP:RSP. Jalopnik is not itself listed there, but it's not a very controversial publication in its own right) The piece block quotes slate, but adds a significant amount of its own thought. Definitely helps with WP:GNG.
- I've also added a Baltimore Sun piece by a regular columnist that should also help with WP:GNG. Links to slate but is decidedly independent, providing a bit of an alternative look at the phenomenon.

—siro χ o 22:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, additional sources added though yes one WP:GNG meeting source is sufficient. Garuda3 (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Merge with Roadway departure: As it stands, this article is about a journalistic practice and not bus plunges themselves, which fall under the category of Roadway departure, a type of traffic collision.

Out of the 37 mainspace inbound links to this page, with the exception of Headline, Journalese, and Filler (media), they are all referring to actual bus plunge accidents and not the practice of reporting on them. These would probably be better served by link to an article that describes the accident type itself instead of a commentary on journalistic practices.

Alternatively, all the non-journalism commentary-related inbound links could be pointed to Roadway departure instead, but I think it makes more sense for Bus plunge to refer to an actual bus plunge than a type of news story, which could possibly be renamed to Bus plunge (journalistic practice) or something of the sort. 9³ (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC) edited 19:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a hatnote for the time being. I would be fine with a move to Bus plunge story or something like that. But I think a merge is not appropriate as the topic matter is decidedly different, as you've noted. —siro χ o 03:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that would work. Changed to rename. 9³ (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider rename. It's got press coverage spanning over 10 years, so meets notability requirements. I'm not sure if renaming to Bus plunge (journalistic practice) really meets Wikipedia naming practices (which caution against unnecessary parentheses or over-long titles) better than having a hatnote - Bus plunge story might be better. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:08, 10 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 universities in Nigeria. Admittedly, I don't see a majority point of view in this discussion. A Redirect closure is a bit of a compromise that will preserve article content in case there is a day, in the future, when notability can be established. I predict a move to Draft space would mean that this article would be deleted on January 14, 2024 as the article is out of sight and out of mind. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philomath University[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the general notability guidelines for organisations. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of universities in Nigeria. The sources have problems with independence (interviews) or WP:SIGCOV, and do not appear to pass WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, doesn't pass WP:GNG.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State-accredited universities are generally kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp, I wish. But, where’s the link to the policy. Remember, every SNG is beneath GNG. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS (a policy) established over many AfDs. If you wish, then why nominate it for deletion? That makes no sense whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp, I would not want to continue lingering this thread as you firmly believe that EVERY learning institution is notable. That’s fine. There have been a lot of Nigerian accredited public schools that has been deleted over the years and I wished they were not deleted hence my “wish” for a policy that makes EVERY learning institution notable. And since this policy does not exist—yet, I will stick with the general notability guidelines. Philomath University is a new university and to me, it looks like an WP:UPE that is WP:TOOSOON. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article may be a bit early but seems to have enough notability and referencing support for encyclopedic inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Indefensible. Meegvun (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was a Professor at a Nigerian University (Bayero University) in its early days so I know something about them. This university is of course less notable than the larger state universities, but I think it is notable enough to be comparable to many other universities there that have articles and indeed better than some of them. --Bduke (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a new University established in 2021, so there isn't much to write about it yet other than it exists, hence the lack of sources. If you're new to AFD, please read WP:SIRS - especially the part with the table where it reviews four different sources to determine if they provide notability - each source needs to meet ALL four requirements. I'm concerned people are coming here thinking this is a "vote" since they aren't explaining how it meets the notability criteria I just linked. Denaar (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to draft. Since it's new, it's possible it will meet guidelines later even if it doesn't yet. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to List of universities in Nigeria. It is an accredited university, so listing there and a redirect are reasonable, but it doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Per Chamaemelum, this may just be WP:TOOSOON, but a redirect (without delete) will preserve the page history which can be used as and when there is significant coverage that meets WP:SIRS. But again, to be clear, this is not the case at this time. Also to add, Indefensible's keep states in the rationale that it may be too soon, and Meegyun says per Indefensible. This accords with my view, but then the policy should dictate delete. Redirect allows the information to be preserved until it is no longer too soon. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. This is a private for-profit company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. As an aside (and not that it matters from a guidelines point of view) I'm not sure you can describe this university as "state-accredited" but closer to "licensed to operate". None of the references mentioned meet the criteria and I'm unable to locate any that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. As for the redirect to save the history of edits, I don't think there is anything that much valuable on the page yet. And draftify, too, is not known to create good new sources on its own. Deckkohl (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike some of the other schools that clearly do not meet the requirements, I think enough references do exist to support this subject. But saving a draft would be preferable to deleting or redirecting in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, "coverage" or "enough references" isn't a reason to keep any article, especially when *none* of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Which references in particular do you think are good enough to cause the article to be kept? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources like Guardian.ng and NationalAccord seem to indicate there is more here than other more obvious delete comparisons such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adarsh_Gramin_Inter_College and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stepping_Stone_Inter_College. There are some primary quotes but reporting is at least secondary in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my !vote above, carefully, I point to WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Leaving aside the whataboutery in your comment, you've listed two sources. This from The Guardian and this from NationalAccord. Is it not blindingly obvious that both of those articles are based entirely on PR from the company? How else could you explain two different journalists writing in two different publications producing exactly the same first paragraph with other paragraphs also exactly the same and a headline which has a single word difference? Or this in the Global Times? I urge you to become more familiar with our GNG/NCORP guidelines to avoid making these gaffs in future. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck keep vote per above. I still think keeping the draft might be productive though. - Indefensible (talk) 18:05, 12 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 merge‎ to Mexico–North Korea relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of North Korea, Mexico City[edit]

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

Article is just a list of non notable ambassadors and not about the actual embassy itself. Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perhaps cutting out some unverified information. It seems like embassies should be considered notable per se, but we don't have a specific agreed upon callout for them yet. The sources taken together may not meet SIGCOV. However, if the outcome is to delete, would be preferable to do a partial merge of verified information and redirect to Mexico–North Korea relations. There's some precedence for this. —siro χ o 08:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any in-depth sources that establish notability? LibStar (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, sorry. I am !voting like that because it seems that embassies should probably be considered notable per se. It's not exactly something I'm ready to WP:VP or WP:RFC yet, so I'm more floating the idea. —siro χ o 10:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no inherent notability for embassies. LibStar (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to link me to any prior discussion about this? —siro χ o 18:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they have been previously deleted or redirected demonstrates no inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Korea, and Mexico. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mexico–North Korea relations. Embassies are not inherently notable (as buildings, they need to meet WP:NBUILDING), but I do think that this content could be used to expand the parent article (that on the relations between the two states). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Delete, Keep and Merge/Redirect options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stub article which is basically a list of non-notable persons. Every person on the list is redlinked as well. ConcentratedCobalt (talk) 00:33, 4 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!} 05:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Embassies are not inherently notable, and this is just a stub containing a red linked list of non-notable people. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mexico–North Korea relations per Red-tailed hawk. Contains cited encyclopedic content that should be preserved, but that content is about the bilateral relationship, not the building. I am sympathetic to siroxo's argument for presumed notability of embassies. But since this article as it stands is not actually about the embassy, I feel that we can perhaps leave that battle for another day. -- Visviva (talk) 17:38, 7 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. I think editors coming in after the final relisting have provided sources that overcome Deletion objections. Just a note that while it's discouraged to relist AFD discussions more than twice, sometimes the discussion can change significantly after a third relisting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Beaty[edit]

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

First female mayor should be notable, but coverage is all routine happenings. Beaverton is a mid-size town, not notable on a national scale. The bit about the former mayor being arrested for being a pedophile isn't particularly helpful. Would be a stronger keep if she was featured in a large newspaper or the like, rather than just reporting on what she's done for the city. Oaktree b (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that there were significant flaws in the way in which the article was originally presented. I appreciate Oaktree b's recommendations about the reference to the former mayor and the extensive information about what she has done for the city. I have made edits accordingly. However, I disagree that Beaty does not meet the notability threshold. While the average mayor of Beaverton, Oregon may not be particularly noteworthy, Beaty is the first woman and youngest mayor in the city's history, as Oaktree b mentioned. Additionally, she has participated in national events, and contributed to national organizations, that I did not include in the article, but they have broadened her notability nonetheless.^[1]^[2]^[3] Even if Beaty wasn't the first female or youngest mayor of the city, it wouldn't be unprecedented for her to have a page; several other current mayors of midsized cities in Oregon have Wikipedia articles (see: Lucy Vinis, Chris Hoy, and Steve Callaway). I appreciate the opportunity to make this article better, but I strongly discourage deletion. Biznaga22 (talk) 8:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

References

^ Achieving Large Goals: Short Essays from Three U.S. Mayors. The Bush Center. Retrieved June 16, 2023, https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/creating-more-perfect-union/mayors-moving-communities-to-greater-goals.
^ Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative Announces Sixth Class of Mayors. Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative. Retrieved June 16, 2023, https://www.cityleadership.harvard.edu/news-collection/bloomberg-harvard-city-leadership-initiative-announces-sixth-class-of-mayors.
^ Pool Reports of January 20, 2023. The American Presidency Project. Retrieved June 16, 2023, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/pool-reports-january-20-2023.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Oregon. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's what Wikipedia:Notability (people) says at the very top of the page ("Basic criteria"):

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
- "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."

WP:NPOL is the subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that mentions politicians. Referring to local politicians it says:

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."

There's full-length reliable, independent news coverage of this mayor.^{[25][26][27][28][29]}

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The job of local news is to cover local politicians; it is literally their journalistic duty to report on who was elected mayor of their town. Thus, hyper-local news articles like [30] constitutes what I would consider to be superficial and typical coverage, routine in thousands upon thousands of communities. Without wide coverage, there has to be something that sets her mayoral tenure apart, whether that be a notable policy that generated coverage or a significant position or something like that. The subject has simply not been written about in-depth enough to justify an argument for WP:NPOL#2 and the hyper-local coverage that does exist isn't satisfactory for WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KATU, which you cite as "hyper-local", is the ABC News affiliate for the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area (population: 2.5 million people - about the size of the Orlando area). The oregonlive.com website is Portland's Oregonian, the second largest newspaper in the Pacific Northwest; it's won 8 Pullitzer Prizes.

The closing admin will follow the guidance I quoted above in my "keep" comment. They'll look at the articles I cited and decide for themselves.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to its article, KATU-TV is owned by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which should be taken into consideration when assessing the source. Beccaynr (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even The Washington Post and The New York Times, two of the country's premier newspapers, provide coverage of local affairs that have little demonstrative notability, so the argument about how many Pulitzer Prizes an outlet has is pretty irrelevant here. Regardless, The Oregonian source that you provided ([31]) is mostly coverage of someone else, with the subject receiving barely a passing mention. Curbon7 (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Biznaga22 and A. B., subject only to some personal wariness of the long-term maintainability of articles at this level. But I did a ctrl-F on Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) to make sure that nothing had changed since my last checkin, and have confirmed neither of these guidelines excludes local coverage. Nor should they: such an exclusion would have the effect of backdooring notability into a test of the significance of the article subject, which is not and never has been the standard. Full-length profiles are not, in general, examples of WP:ROUTINE coverage.
The fundamental question in notability is: is there an adequate quantity of suitable source material for an article? I think the sources cited in the above discussion make it clear that there is. As to the reliability of local sources, I think they meet the crucial threshold of being sources of the kind that experts in the field would rely on. I am no expert on Oregon municipal politics, but I cannot imagine that any expert in that field would prefer the NYT (for example) to a local source. As a character in my favorite forgotten 1990s drama stated, the paper of record somehow invariably manages to get some important detail wrong. And while Sinclair affiliation is something to keep an eye on, in my own limited experience elsewhere Sinclair stations tend to play local politics pretty straight. In sum, as there is adequate material to build an article from, and nothing here appears to bump up against the guardrails of WP:NOT or WP:BLP, there is no basis for deletion. -- Visviva (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and easily and strongly so - mayors are not inherently notable and she has not received any non-local press. The "national" references aren't really national references, they're just conferences or development programmes she attended. The fact other mayors have articles isn't proof of anything and there's at least one of those articles which also doesn't pass notability standards. And it's absolutely WP:ROUTINE for a mayor to have a feature article printed in a local newspaper - that's the point of local newspapers! There's nothing here showing she's a notable politician at all outside the city she's in charge of. (If there's a list of mayors of Beaverton, that would be a valid redirect target.)

SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is routine coverage? WP:SBST, a subsection of our main notability guideline, says this:
- "For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage."
WP:SIGCOV (a.k.a. WP:GNG, gives the rationale, which I believe clinches the argument for this article:
- "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
This definitely applies to this mayor -- there is substantial independent coverage of her in multiple reliable sources to support this article.

WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (events). Mayor Beatty is not an event.
Wikipedia:Notability (people) is instead the applicable guideline. Here's what the guideline says at the very top ("Basic criteria"):
- "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
  - "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."
WP:NPOL is the subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that mentions politicians. Referring to local politicians it says:
- "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."
The article cites full-length reliable, independent news coverage of this mayor.

These are our guidelines and they're what the closing admin will use to decide this case.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is correct - local politicians frequently only receive coverage in local papers, and that coverage itself is WP:ROUTINE. If that were true, then every mayor in every town would always be notable, considering mayoral elections always generate coverage - but that's not the case, and we use a combination of common sense and the scope of the media coverage to determine whether someone should have a stand-alone article written about them. SportingFlyer T·C 20:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting although I see a slight edge to those advocating Keeping this article. But it seems to rest on differing interpretations of Notability and Routine and how they apply to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia now has more than its share of "the first X to be Y" type of articles, so piling-on makes it seem more like intereating trivia rather than notable fact. The office is not inherently notable, so there isn't really much justification. 128.252.154.9 (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The office is not inherently notable, so there isn't really much justification" does not make sense. you have not provided a valid reason for deletion per policy. Do not post nonsense.

This IP voter is very suspect Naomijeans (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the IP's 5 contributions - they all seem legit. IP is registered to Washington University. I disagree with their !vote and their reasoning but comment doesn't seem to have been made in bad faith. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:41, 14 July 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!} 05:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "first X to be Y" doesn't automatically constitute notability. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE as well, the office itself also lacks notability. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not sufficient that Beaty is the first female and youngest mayor of Beaverton, so this is not a case of "the first X to be Y." The article should be kept because Beaty meets the "general notability guideline." As A. B. pointed out, the WP:ROUTINE guideline is meant for events. Since this is a biography of a living person, we should be looking at the "general notability guideline" under WP:NOTABILITY, which is required under the politicians and judges section of WP:NOTABILITY (people). This policy states that, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:SIGCOV is met since there is enough source material to write an accurate biography without "original research." Additionally, I don't see any arguments for deletion that accurately refute the reliability or the independence of the sources in the article. Biznaga22 (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:ROUTINE were used only for events, every mayor in every town would be notable, but we use WP:ROUTINE in every article - not just events - for its clear guidance on interpreting coverage: Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. And mayoral elections are the very basis of routine - every village, town, and city in the United States has them at specified intervals, and they always receive routine coverage. The coverage for this particular article does not rise above routine coverage - if she had received coverage outside her metropolitan area, for instance, then I'd be on the keep side, but that's not the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"If WP:ROUTINE were used only for events, every mayor in every town would be notable, but we use WP:ROUTINE in every article - not just events…"
WP:ROUTINE is a shortcut to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage

If, however, you apply WP:ROUTINE anyway, here are the examples it gives as "routine":
"Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

None of those examples apply to the coverage we're citing, all of which met newsworthiness requirements when published.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Analysis of the sources

Lacey Beaty received significant coverage in The Oregonian, which is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest newspaper in the Pacific Northwest. She received additional coverage in other Oregon sources like the Beaverton Valley Times, KATU, KGW, Oregon Public Broadcasting, the Portland Business Journal, and the Portland Tribune. This is sufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges, which says, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."
WP:ROUTINE, which redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage, does not apply to Lacey Beaty because she is a person, not an event.

Sources
1. Bray, Kari (2014-05-21). "Lacey Beaty's city council win is bittersweet as husband leaves for Afghanistan". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "Lacey Beaty is a U.S. Army veteran who has also served overseas, three years in Germany and one in Iraq. She previously told the Beaverton Leader that she struggled to reintegrate into civilian life, and Beaverton gave her the stability and support she needed. That’s part of what motivated her to run for council."
2. Bray, Kari (2014-02-12). "Lacey Beaty files to run against Ian King for Beaverton City Council seat". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "Beaverton lacrosse coach and U.S. Army veteran Lacey Beaty has filed to run against Beaverton City Councilor Ian King in this year’s election. ... Beaty, 29, has lived in Beaverton since 2008 with her husband, Ian Beaty. She moved to Oregon after serving in the U.S. Army, including three years in Germany and one in Iraq. ... Beaty is currently vice chair of the Beaverton Visioning Advisory Committee. She coaches lacrosse at Beaverton High School, is vice chair on the HomePlate Youth Services Board of Directors and serves on the Leadership Beaverton Board of Directors."
3. Bray, Kari (2014-03-12). "Six candidates vying for three Beaverton City Council seats". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "Council position 1: Lacey Beaty • 29 • Lacrosse coach Past public service • Vice chairwoman of the Beaverton Visioning Advisory Committee • Vice chairwoman on HomePlate Youth Services Board of Directors • Leadership Beaverton Board of Directors Other • Served in the U.S. Army, including three years in Germany and one in Iraq"
4. Alteir, Nuran (2014-12-31). "Incoming Beaverton City Councilor Lacey Beaty wants a defined downtown, warming shelter". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "Beaverton City Council has a new face this week after community activist and U.S. Army veteran Lacey Beaty was set to be sworn in Tuesday. Beaty, who has lived in Beaverton since 2008, served as vice chair on the city’s Visioning Advisory Committee, was vice chair on HomePlate Youth Services board of directors, and was on the Leadership Beaverton board of directors. She had no intention to run for City Council."
5. Notarianni, John (2020-11-08). "Beaverton's new mayor, Lacey Beaty, will have a very different role". Oregon Public Broadcasting. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "Beaverton City Councilor Lacey Beaty defeated incumbent Denny Doyle in the election. He’d been mayor of the city since 2009. ... Beaty has been a member of the Beaverton City Council since 2015."
6. Bishop, Lauren (2023-03-14). "Beaty touts accomplishments, work ahead in Beaverton's 2023 State of the City". Beaverton Valley Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "Homelessness, the Downtown Loop and community safety were key highlights as Mayor Lacey Beaty reflected on the last year and looked toward the future during the annual State of the City address Monday evening, March 12. At the Patricia Reser Center for the Arts, Beaty shared with the packed in-person crowd the city's successes in 2022 and gave residents a glimpse of what to expect in 2023. Beaty brought up the challenge of addressing homelessness just one minute into her remarks during the State of the City, after thanking notable members of the audience for attending the event."
7. Articles from Gabby Urenda in Beaverton Valley Times:
  1. Urenda, Gabby (2020-11-10). "Beaverton Mayor-elect Lacey Beaty shares plans for city's future". Beaverton Valley Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
    The article notes: "Beaverton residents have spoken, and Lacey Beaty will be the city's new mayor. The mayor-elect defeated incumbent Denny Doyle in last week's general election on Tuesday, Nov. 3, by a margin of about 7 percentage points. Doyle conceded the race the following day"
  2. Urenda, Gabby (2020-11-10). "Lacey Beaty will be first woman to serve as Beaverton mayor". Portland Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
    The article notes: "Beaty will be the first woman to serve as mayor of Beaverton. ... Beaty also wants to have public safety at the forefront — more specifically, making sure the right people are doing the right work when it comes to community safety policing, she added. ... She will officially be sworn in as mayor at the Beaverton City Council's first regular meeting in January."
8. "Forty Under 40 2022: Mayor Lacey Beaty of Beaverton". Portland Business Journal. 2022-05-11. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "Why we chose Lacey: She’s transforming Beaverton city government, literally, as the city is transitioning from a commission form of government to a city manager form of government. The changes come as Beaverton, economically, becomes more of an extension of, as opposed to a complement to, Portland. She’s also an Army veteran, who served as a medic in Iraq."
9. Graves, Lincoln (2020-11-06). "Beaverton set to get new progressive mayor after longtime incumbent defeated". KATU. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "Longtime incumbent Denny Doyle was defeated by progressive challenger Lacey Beaty. ... Beaty is fine with the progressive label but she also stresses that she's her own person and Beaverton has its own identity separate from Portland. ... Beaty begins her term as Beaverton mayor on Jan. 1."
10. Porter, Laural (2021-02-05). "Newly-elected mayors of Portland's suburbs break barriers". KGW. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "For Mayor Beaty, that busy month ended in a weekend skiing accident on Timberline. She tore her meniscus and was scheduled for surgery Friday. ... Beaty said she's spent a lot of her first weeks in office explaining to businesses and other officials the city interacts with how their new system of government works. Beaverton voters approved a city charter change to a mayor-city manager form of government with a full-time mayor. She's also spending a lot of time listening to people."
11. Owen, Wendy (2015-02-27). "Beaverton's Mark Fagin and Lacey Beaty appointed to National League of Cities". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "Beaty was appointed to the Human Development steering committee ... Beaty's work will include development of federal policy positions for the National League of Cities on social services, children and learning, poverty, employment and workforce development, social security and seniors,"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lacey Beaty to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard, source coverage looks to support on notability and quality. - Indefensible (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Article has improved and expanded significantly over the course of this discussion (and has changed a lot in the last 24 hours), so please do have another read: Lacey Beaty. I actually agree with the argument that "local" city coverage (i.e., Beaverton Valley Times) is not enough to justify notability for a mayor, but in this case, in addition to in-depth local coverage about her Outstanding Veteran of the Year Award from the Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs), we have WP:SIGCOV at the regional level (Portland Business Journal 's "40 Under 40" 2022); at the state level (several articles in The Oregonian as highlighted above by Cunard, as well as this article by the Oregon Capital Insider which was widely syndicated to other Oregon city publications such as the Corvallis Gazette-Times); and at the national level in Politico, which named Lacey Beaty to its inaugural Fifty Mayors Club (and published her biography which we can be confident they fact-checked). Many other sources have been added to the article, which is now quite comprehensive (while trying to avoid going overboard with local detail), and was rated "B"-level by Rater. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per User A.B. who has summarized policies and provided links to 5 articles that establish notability. Naomijeans (talk) 02:30, 14 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!} 05:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Gonzales (Northern Mariana Islands politician)[edit]

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

Delete. Candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. I also do not believe his radio career meets GNG or Artist. Mpen320 (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Oceania, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable former candidate for office. SportingFlyer T·C 19:11, 9 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 no consensus‎. As the nominator isn't satisfied with the sources presented in this AFD, they will not be pleased with this closure but the fact also is after two relistings, they have received no support for the deletion of this article so I see no other outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Crimea[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Sources cited in the article are about the Russian occupation and annexation of part of Ukraine, none specifically about this document. —Michael Z. 14:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Michael Z. 14:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mzajac: ~~Why are we deleting a talk page?~~ — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem fixed; striking above comment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used Twinkle at the wrong location. Please fix or let me know if I failed to clean up any of the fallout. Thanks. —Michael Z. 15:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources cited in the article perhaps, but Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And, there has actually been a good bit of writing about the document as it pertains to Russian law (such as [32], examining the Declaration's treatment of Sevastapol), as well as the implications for international law (such as [33]). The passage of the unilateral declaration of independence itself was covered contemporaneously with its passage (e.g. [34], [35]), so I think WP:GNG is met here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk, Can you cite the first one with author-date-title or DOI? The link just returns a login page. Thanks. —Michael Z. 16:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two “covered contemporaneously” sources are literally a mention of the fact that a declaration was made, and padded out with other news. The first is merely regurgitation of the fact from an inaccessible AP article. The second is a single sentence. Not significant coverage.

The Desai and Sidhu article is potentially significant. —Michael Z. 17:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link that should work if you're logged in through WP:TWL. It's "The Case of the City of Sevastopol: Domestic and International Law" from 5 Russ. L.J. (2017). There is also comparative literature involving this UDI (such as comparing it to that of Kosovo) and other literature that analyzes the legality of the UDI itself straight away. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the TWL link.

So the text of Cwicinskaja 2017 mentions the declaration of independence (excluding the abstract and headings). More than a passing mention, but not by much. The existence of a declaration is an important point to its content, but it is by no means about the declaration.

Nikouai and Zamani 2016 mention it a few more times, but the subject is the “secession of Crimea” and one major part of it is the legality of declarations in general. Getting closer, but it is still the same subject as annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, its legal aspects, and not substantially about the document or declaration itself.

I am not yet convinced.

(The “comparing it to that of Kosovo” link also gives me a login page and no info about the source.) —Michael Z. 04:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I scanned through Desai and Sidhu 2014, and it doesn’t seem to actually say anything about the Crimean declaration of independence. —Michael Z. 04:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Red-tailed hawk. The document appears to have legal and historical significance discussed in scholarly sources. I found the international law article particularly convincing that this meets WP:GNG.

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk’s sources literally say the declaration doesn’t have legal and historical significance. More importantly for this question, they treat it as a relevant object, and not their subject.

Nikouei and Zamani 2016: “The ICJ’s advisory opinion in the case of Kosovo is progressive in that making a distinction between the legality of a Declaration of Independence and the secession ensuing it makes it easier for a lawyer to divorce an act of secession from the formalities associated with a declaration of independence. Such was the approach taken by this piece towards the legality of secession and deflation of independence in Crimea. Without this approach, the most one could achieve was to point towards the illegality of secession in Crimea without addressing such essential features as the declaration of independence and the legality of the referendum held therein. [. . .] Once again, the wholesome misinterpretation and misuse of self-determination in Crimea does dictate an urgent need for more clarification in this area. ¶ Even though the exercise of secession was underscored by sheer illegality, one must still fear the unwelcome precedent that Crimea may set in the future. For this reason alone, a continuous and substantive engagement with the issues associated with self-determination helps reduce the frightening possibilities that may arise from the political exploits made out of the selective invocation of the right to self-determination.”

Cwicinskaja 2017: “However, regardless of its special status, the city does not have the power in domestic law to declare independence, and its actions were illegal.”

Desai and Sidhu 2014 doesn’t seem to say anything about the declaration. —Michael Z. 04:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as some of the sources are related to the topic, which appears notable. Significant is not the same as notable.

Godtres (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? —Michael Z. 22:56, 7 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!} 00:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Pattillo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I represent the article subject, he regards himself as a non-notable, private person, and he wants the article to be deleted Fbvs1 (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual, Forbes contributor piece by Ashoka is the only ref I can find, and it's not useful. Refs used are all PR-ish or in non-RS. Could be some sort of PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. I'm not sure if the articles on two of his ventures, Gray Matters Capital and Village Capital, meet notability requirements either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - regardless of the subject's purported intentions, there is probably enough notability and coverage for encyclopedic inclusion. For examples, the Stanford Social Innovation Review covered him in this article and Philanthropy Roundtable covers the subject here. There are more sources available online including video interviews. - Indefensible (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL Let'srun (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is not a politician or judge. Did you mean to reply to a different nomination? - Indefensible (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus, even disregarding the vote based on WP:POL.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the apparent request for removal could be from literally anyone (claiming to represent a person doesn't mean you actually represent 'em), the subject is not actually notable as a businessperson in part because he has kept a relatively low profile for someone who could have made a lot more noise (and therefore been easily identifiable as notable per our guidelines). Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:43, 7 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!} 07:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Foundry[edit]

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

Routine mentions don't pass WP:CORP. One of the three references is the company's own website. Uhooep (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, United States of America, and Wisconsin. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy WP:RESCUE candidate, though there's really not much to rescue outside some additional sources. The developer of two major audio and video programs is definitely notable, even if they've since been sold off. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrSchimpf, did any "additional sources" turn up? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought they would, but two relists suggest they will not, so this might end up being a soft delete since nobody has brought any new ones (as a Wisconsinite I admit I've known the company, but that was years ago before they sold their products off). Nate • (chatter) 21:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep This article is about a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The two references in the article are PR ~~and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, most that mention the company are PR or mentions-in-passing.~~ I was able to locate several analyst reports on the company which meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Unfortunately, this can't be closed as Soft Deletion as it has received a vote to Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - substantial coverage in the Wisconsin State Journal including in-depth articles on company-restructuring.[36]. Newspapers.com has hundreds of hits on the term "sonic foundry". This is available to us for free via Wikipedia Library.

Also, while not technically establishing notability, Sonic Foundry is listed on the NASDAQ exchange. As a result, there are plenty of reliable SEC filings on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's EDGAR site with which to build an article. Those with financial statements are independently certified by independent accounting firms. Under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, CEOs are subject to criminal and financial penalties for misstatements.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easy enough to find independent sources. Company has been around since 1991. Wisconsin State Journal, 24 Apr 2022, Sun · Page A26, June 15, 2023 MADISON, Wis.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sonic Foundry, Inc. (NASDAQ: SOFO). Lot of info out there but I don't have time to fix this but no reason that I can't be left for someone to fix. Nyth 63 03:02, 9 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!} 05:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Huebner[edit]

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

Running a check on articles with old notability issues. This one seems to fail WP:NPROF. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only has 11 citations in GScholar, even for his field of study, I wonder if that helps notability. Rest seems non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found a couple of reviews of his book A Precarious Peace: Yoderian Explorations on Theology, Knowledge, and Identity.[37][38]. He's a theologian, so probably we're dealing with a lot of offline sources and I wouldn't put much faith in GScholar at all. – Joe (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - per Joe Roe, he appears to just barely meet WP:AUTHOR. - car chasm (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the reviews as above, seems fine. AUTHOR or Academic notability as has had some critical notice in the field they work in. Oaktree b (talk) 04:11, 7 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 no consensus‎. While consensus shifted away from deletion outright as the discussion progressed and socks were outed, late !votes for merge leaves the community's ultimate assessment of notability unclear. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TaxProf Blog[edit]

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

~~The page fails WP:GNG.~~

~~References check:~~

~~1. No “Tax Prof Blog” name is found on page 114 (where it is supposed to be). Even if it is there, it is definitely just mentioned and doesn’t contribute to notability.~~

~~2. Very short mention – no in-depth coverage.~~

~~3. There is not even a mention of TaxProf Blog on page 8 of the book.~~

~~4. I wasn’t able to verify this book.~~

~~5. Seems to be just one name among 100 in the list of blogs. Doesn’t contribute to Wikipedia notability.~~

~~6. A short paragraph – not in-depth coverage.~~

~~7. An opinion of Paul Caron, the founder of the Tax Prof Blog. Not an eligible source.~~

~~8. The blog itself. MartinPict (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Just a comment, as I don't really care about this article one way or the other, but it's pages 488–489 that are at issue, not page 114 (which is the volume number). There we can read "When the U.S. News potential ranking was announced, the responses were numerous. For example, Dean Paul Caron’s popular TaxProf Blog published over 20 entries on the report." I leave others to judge if this brief mention is enough to confer notability. Athel cb (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

First, analysis of references is flawed.

1. Nominator has confused volume number for page number.

3. Yes, there is. Not sure if nominator has confused page numbers again or what, but I can see it in front of me.

4. "I wasn't able to verify this book." Not sure why, it's right here. [39]

6. Incorrect description of source. Significant coverage is not a word count, it is content that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". This 151-word reference is a direct and detailed description of the subject.

7. Incorrect description of source. It's a feature of the subject on law.com, an RS source.

Corrected Source Analysis: The article contains three significant treatments of the source in WP:RS (Canadian Tax Journal[40], law.com [41], and the Symposium on the Impact of Technology on Law), plus several additional short mentions of the source in RS that are sufficient to fill-out details on the subject, including being named one of the top legal blogs by ABA Journal [42] and separately established as the fifth most-trafficked legal blog [43].

Second, though an essay, our generally accepted WP:NMAG establishes that an outlet that "has made significant impact in its field or other area" and "has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works" is usually notable. The most cursory check just on JSTOR (which is not even a very thorough source for legal journals) finds the site referenced [44] in more than three-dozen scholarly journals in the last five years while a search on Google Books shows the outlet cited [45] in more than 25 books, the majority from academic publishers. Chetsford (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC); edited 15:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Canadian Tax Journal's article is an example of significant coverage. It just talks about how Caron blogs daily and posts some articles in a specific niche, i.e., American law. I'm checking other sources. US-Verified (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've got to agree with the source analysis, they just don't give notability. Simple mentions at most aren't enough, rest are about as useless for notability standards. I can't find anything, other than the site itself. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Symposium linked for Item 4 appears only as a landing page, I can't open the document, it appears un-related, talking about law libraries, not about blogs. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I can't open the document" Per WP:OFFLINE, "Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources." "it appears un-related" A symposium about legal research is definitely related to the subject of legal media and this specific presentation deals with the subject to a sufficient level of depth. I'd strongly encourage you to choose to read the source. Chetsford (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not paying to access it nor can I get to a legal library with access. I'm trusting the source analysis above however; if you have access, how much of the Symposium report is dedicated to this blog? Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is, the other sources are non-useful from what I can tell. One iffy source and a bunch of useless ones, don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not paying to access it nor can I get to a legal library with access." So, to clarify, you haven't seen the source and the OP hasn't seen the source. And, due to personal inconvenience, you're not going to attempt to access it. Rather, you're going to assume it's a bad source and !vote Delete. (FYI, in general, our modus operandi in such circumstances is to "Be sure to assume good faith for the user who cited the offline source.".) Chetsford (talk)

Correct. Based on the discussion below, it does not appear to be a useful source. Even if it is, it's one source, the rest appear about as un-helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pay for me to read it, be my guest. I'm not spending my money on it. Frankly, I don't expect much to be found. And it's at best one source, the rest are very trivial mentions. Unless it's a detailed 10 page report on the history of the blog, it still doesn't help us hit notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"If you want to pay for me to read it, be my guest." Unfortunately, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service. We don't typically pay for !votes. "Unless it's a detailed 10 page report" I've been involved in hundreds of AfDs and this is, certainly, the first time I've ever heard that any source less than a "detailed 10 page report" is insufficient to meet our SIGCOV requirements. Chetsford (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you respond to everything we say? BLUDGEON is a thing here as well. Oaktree b (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per @Chetsford. It's a law blog that has been covered fairly well by legal sources.

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On the Chetsford's arguments:

~~1. Nominator has confused volume number for page number. Even if I made that mistake, it is poorly technical. Chetsford still didn't show how that source was "in-depth coverage of TaxProfBlog".~~

3. Yes, there is. Not sure if nominator has confused page numbers again or what, but I can see it in front of me. I'd be excited to see that mention and how it makes the TaxProfBlog any notable for Wikipedia

4. "I wasn't able to verify this book." Not sure why, it's right here. Great, would you, @Chetsford, be so kind and discover for the Wikipedia community what the book wrote on TaxProfBlog and what page exactly?

6. Incorrect description of source. Significant coverage is not a word count, it is content that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". This 151-word reference is a direct and detailed description of the subject. It is still a short paragraph - there is no universe where you can call a cat "an elephant".

~~7. Incorrect description of source. It's a feature of the subject on law.com, an RS source. Anyone who reads that source, will understand it is an interview or an opinion piece.~~

As for TulsaPoliticsFan - it is a stochastic comment. It would be nice to hear more arguments here, in particular to my detailed report. Bottom line: we do not have any significant and in-depth coverage here as WP:GNG requires.

~~MartinPict (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment I've reviewed the Canadian Tax Journal article. It explains what a blog is, tells us how long this blog has been around, and advises us it's used in the US by law professors. It's also hoped it stays around for a while. The thing takes up a barely a third of the page. A RS, yes, but it's trivial coverage. So we have 5, maybe 6 trivial mentions of this blog, some in RS. That's barely at GNG. Still a !delete for me. And please don't ping me, I've spent too much time on this kerfuffle already. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "we do not have any significant and in-depth coverage here" This appears to be incorrect. We have three RS that meet the conventional definition of SIGCOV (Canadian Tax Journal, law.com, and the Symposium on the Impact of Technology on Law), supplemented by additional RS of supplementary character. It is true that this does not meet the ... ahem, novel ... argument that SIGCOV requires a minimum of "10 pages". I have to respectfully reject the argument that SIGCOV requires 10+ pages per source as inconsistent with our policies and guidelines, as well as any convention or precedent that exists anytime, anywhere, ever, at any point, on WP. Chetsford (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was using it as an over-the-top example. I digress. Oaktree b (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is an unfair assessment of my comment. Seconding another users analysis is not a stochastic comment. I happen to agree with @Chetsford's stance that coverage of a legal source in other legal sources combined with the fact the blog is cited by scholars meets the notability guidelines. The fact I didn't re-type out their analysis isn't a reason to disregard the fact I agree with them. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ - I agree with Oaktree B's comments. To be honest, the notability is very weak, and readers would be better served if we spend our time and energy on a topic that is actually notable, such as the founder of this website, Paul L. Caron.

- Ref #1 essentially states, For example, Dean Paul Caron's popular TaxProf Blog published over 20 entries on the report This is all I could find when I downloaded the file. It's not really significant coverage.

- Ref #2 is simply a mention.

- Ref #3's coverage in the book is insignificant. I will expand on this later.

- I can't comment on Ref #4, as it was a symposium and I don't have access to it. However, I suspect it would focus more on the professor, the blog's founder, rather than the blog itself.

- The article in Ref #5 isn't selective enough to be considered "significant coverage". It covered 100 blogs, all related to the legal field. Should we create 100 pages about these minor blogs? I think a list would serve better.

- I've already commented on Ref #6 above.

- Ref #7 is a Q&A session with Professor Caron, which, at best, is a primary source.

- Ref #8 is a backlink to the topic's website. US-Verified (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Book: I'm including all the mentions of this blog in the cited book (I've access) below:

Paul Caron of the TaxProf Blog analyzed the data and concluded that the proportion of law school applicants with scores above 160 shrunk by 35 percent between 2010 and 2017.
The book probably cites Paul Caron and his website TaxProf Blog more than any other source. Caron’s blog is a must-read if you are interested in this topic. And Again, if you are interested in this topic, you should definitely read their websites Legal Evolution (Henderson), the Legal Whiteboard and TaxProf Blog (Organ), Excess of Democracy blog (Muller), and Computational Legal Studies blog (Katz).

That's it. It is clearly not significant enough. US-Verified (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't have access to it. However, I suspect" Guesses as to what a source might contain is not the foundation for a policy-based argument in the absence of actually viewing the source.

"Ref #7 is a Q&A session with Professor Caron" This contains significant expository coverage of the outlet itself separate from Caron's responses. I'm not sure if you were maybe making guesses on the content based on the title again?

"The article in Ref #5 isn't selective enough to be considered "significant coverage". I double-checked and it looks like "selectivity" isn't one of the criteria in our WP:SIGCOV guideline. And I'm not sure why the ABA Journal would not be selective enough in any case as it's unambiguously RS.

"I've already commented on Ref #6 above." Perhaps I missed it, but I don't believe you did. This is a 151-word treatment of the blog in a peer-reviewed journal. Chetsford

Also, could you address our generally accepted WP:NMAG essay that an outlet that "has made significant impact in its field or other area" and "has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works" is usually notable? As noted above, this has been cited in more than 50 academic journals and books from academic publishers in the last five years. Chetsford (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I re-checked the sources, too, and found that this blog is indeed cited in some academic sources, but let's not forget that literally anything can be cited that way in a certain context, i.e. it's not an indicator. As for the notability of the subject, for which we have clear criteria, it does not seem to me to have been established by the sources. Sources 1,2,5, and even 6 are trivial or too short mentions, 7 and 8 aren't independent, and 3 and 4 are offline sources. As for WP:OFFLINE, this suggests not only "assuming good faith", but also being able to show the community scans/photos of the source in question. Such a suggestion was voiced in this discussion but ignored. Suitskvarts (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"As for WP:OFFLINE, this suggests not only "assuming good faith", but also being able to show the community scans/photos of the source in question." That's incorrect. It says to AGF but that the provider may be able to provide a scan, however, obviously our WP:COPYVIO applies. It does, however, place the onus on the editor challenging the source to "Consider visiting your local library to obtain a copy". That suggestion was offered and it was ignored. I offer it again. An editor who is unwilling to AGF or to visit their local library could, as a last resort, verify that the treatment in this source occupies a full four pages by searching the snippet view at Google Books [46], though, of course they would be unable to verify the specifics of its content. An editor unwilling to undertake even that minimal effort is probably not registering a GF !vote. Chetsford (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. This is the guideline that every topic must meet. WP:NMAG is an essay, no longer a community-vetted guideline. This discussion has been bludgeoned by the article creator. It appears that they have some sort of WP:COI, and their most recent edits (work) in June are related to the TaxProf Blog, which is concerning. We need more independent opinions and less bludgeoning by Chetsford. 5.42.92.163 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: !Voting on this AfD was the first ever edit originating from this IP. Chetsford (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per request at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Close_at_AfD. See longer note momentarily.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin note: Per request of @Chetsford: at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Close_at_AfD, I am relisting this following restoration. This AfD was sock infested (not known at time of closure, no one is contesting the close) and with what we know now, I probably would have relisted it. History of the socking is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MartinPict. Chetsford requested an N/C close, which I was willing to do noting that an established editor could revisit it -- but I feel it better to establish a clean consensus here & now vs. a bandaid solution and potentially a new AfD. On the merits of the website, I am neutral. I leave it to someone else if sock strikes are needed as with the small template, I get muddled in syntax. Star Mississippi 01:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well now that the sock was removed, I'm still not showing notability. Trivial mentions for what seems to be a well-loved thing in the legal community. I was hoping for a redirect, but there doesn't seem to be any viable target. Maybe the community that uses the blog will try to get some of the journals above to publish a more extensive article and we can revisit this later. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Oaktree. The Future of Law Libraries article, which is the longest of the RS in the aticle, is four pages long. Your comment seems to indicate you don't believe four pages of journal coverage constitutes SIGCOV. It might help us to identify additional sources that would satisfy you if you could be more specific as to your unique SIGCOV requirements. You previously said nothing is SIGCOV "unless it's a detailed 10 page report", but then said you were just kidding. I feel like we're getting a moving target so if I could politely nail you down to something I may be able to satisfy you. Chetsford (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no further comments on this matter. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Paul Caron with minor rewrite. Keep See notes in chart below. Very borderline GNG for the blog, but given the number of times their work is cited, and their other work (some of which is in here) the blogger seems to meet WP:AUTHOR.1 easily and likely WP:ACADEMIC. Likely a single article for the two is sufficient, and if ever necessary a split would be easy. —siro χ o 09:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Wayne, Leslie (March 26, 2008). New York Times.	~ is tied to quote from author	trivial mention	✘ No
Law Library Journal. 114 (4): 489. 2022.		doesn't actually cover the blog, this could establish author (Caron) notability	✘ No
Weiss, Debra (October 30, 2008). ABA Journal.	The subject compiled the list	list entry	✘ No
Barton, Benjamin (2019). Fixing Law Schools.		trivial mention outside of citations, this could help to establish author notability	✘ No
The Future of Law Libraries: Selected Articles from a Symposium on the Impact of Technology on Law Libraries and Law Classrooms of the Future.	seems to be authored by Caron	sigcov per Chetsford, could also establish notability for Caron if it has citations	✘ No
McDonough, Molly ABA Journal.		~ short entry on 100 item list	~ Partial
USA Today		citation (more minor author notability)	✘ No
Washington Post		citation (more minor author notability)	✘ No
Above the Law		citation (more minor author notability)	✘ No
law.com		cant see it but should be same as above per this arcticle	✘ No
Macnaughton, Alan (2004). Canadian Tax Journal.		borderline, mostly describes what a blog is, but should count	✔ Yes
Sloan, Karen (July 17, 2019). law.com.	"...Paul Caron reflects on..."		✘ No
TaxProf Blog.			✘ No
TAX NOTES (provided below in this discussion)	Relies on founder		✘ No
The CPA Journal (provided below in this discussion)			✔ 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)).

Thanks for your thorough assessment, Siroxo. Regarding, The Future of Law Libraries, Canon is only mentioned twice in the four page article on the outlet; would that contribute to Canon's notability? Also, you say you "can't see" the law.com article. I can see it and can affirm that this is more than a citation mention of the site.
Also, you reference "the blogger" and "their work is cited." I think you're misunderstanding. There is not "a blogger". This is an outlet with many writers. Indeed, as of the datestamp, the first two articles on the site are by people other than Canon. [47] [48] Chetsford (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think @Chetsford is probably right that a move would give Paul Caron too much credit. It's like SCOTUSBlog, somewhere between a legal newspaper and a law review; the word "blog" is kinda misleading and implies a level of informality and singular ownership that isn't actually present. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding The Future of Law Libraries article the information I can find is via Google books (or other less detailed sources) which shows Caron as an author, which would suggest it's not an independent source. As to whether it establishes notability for Caron, that would be more on the scholar or author angle, depending on how cited (or reviewed) this piece is and so on. I will update the above table to reflect that it provides sigcov, but as it's not independent it won't really affect the discussion. —siro χ o 21:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not going to try to figure out what on earth has been going on in this discussion. But in any event, even if the article subject did not meet the GNG I would still argue for inclusion per WP:NMAG (which despite lacking formal guideline status provides a standard more appropriately tailored to our purpose of being an encyclopedia). But it does meet the GNG, so that point is moot. Indeed I suspect one might struggle to find a single US or Canadian bar journal that has not provided some coverage of TaxProf Blog at some point in the past 19 years. At any rate, we seem to be past the point of haggling over sources, but just in case I will note nontrivial coverage at The CPA Journal and Tax Notes, among others. -- Visviva (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Visviva. While the TAX NOTES source is not independent, The CPA Journal is and does indeed seem to get us over the GNG threshold. I've added it to the table and updated my !vote above. As this discussion shows, It's taken a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to find two independent sources, as so many of them rely on Caron's words. We do have to be careful about not relying on the subject (or someone closely tied to the subject) in order to maintain NPOV, so I appreciate your sourcing. While we do technically have enough for GNG, if you have other sources it would definitely benefit to add them here or in the article. —siro χ o 02:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we're on the same page, but I would have to quibble a bit here. Tax Notes is an independent (and AFAIK fairly well-respected) periodical in the field, and the author Warren Rojas is a journalist of decent repute. Tax Notes is normally buried deep behind a paywall so I included the convenience link to the PDF on lawprofessorblogs.com, but I don't think there's an independence issue there. I know it has become fashionable to discount all coverage that draws on interviews with the article subject but a) Caron is not the article subject and b) I think this practice is questionable under both the GNG's definition of independence and the relevant WP:OR footnote which states that whether an interview is a primary source "depend[s] on context". The general dissensus about any bright-line rule in this 2018 discussion of the question (possibly the most recent?) is illustrative. In this case, IMO Rojas' independent reportorial judgment, context and analysis combine to make this a cromulent source. But anyway, here are a couple of cites that go more to significance than sourceability, but would have IMO some relevance to article-worthiness: Christopher M. Fairman describing the blog as "lauded as a must-read in the legal community and general blogosphere" and a 2023 Florida Tax Review article calling it "widely recognized in the academic tax community as the leading tax oriented blog". On a similar note, the ABA Journal's "Blawg 100" appears to be pretty widely cited in articles and has featured TaxProf Blog on numerous occasions -- the blog was inducted into the Blawg 100 Hall of Fame (reader view required) in 2013. -- Visviva (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand what you're saying in terms of interviews, and have no reason to doubt the quality of Tax Notes or Rojas' work. This source in general does seem excellent, indeed. My quibble is basically with the fact that the entirety of coverage of "TaxProf Blog" in this piece derives from Caron's input. If the piece were more widely about TaxProf with this small input from Caron, then I'd agree that the fact that Rojas conducted an interview of Caron would not prevent the "independence", but it's not the case there. I guess that's my personal "bright line" of independence: whether it seems the bulk of information about the subject in question was sourced via someone close to the subject. I don't merely decide on the presence of an interview. To look at it more broadly, if the bulk of coverage about a subject relies directly on the words of people involved, I can't see a way in which Wikipedia can preserve NPOV. Anyways, seeing your user page I will respect your desire to keep discussion short, and will not presume anything of it if you choose not to reply. —siro χ o 05:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've created page on Paul L. Caron, so I'm changing my vote from delete to redirect or selective merge as appropriate, in accordance with WP:ATD. The coverage is mostly related to Caron, so it's better to cover the blog within his biography rather than creating a permanent stub. I'd also encourage those who voted delete to change their votes to redirect. Thank you. US-Verified (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I still don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Paul L. Caron. Thanks to @US-Verified for making this improvement. Otherwise, keep per @Visviva's comments and links. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge as suggested above. Good work User:US-Verified for improving the situation. BusterD (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG is met via the Law.com, Canadian Tax Journal, and the CPA Journal sources. However, WP:NWEB also advises us that When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. As the blog is widely recognized in the academic tax community as the leading tax oriented blog[49], its signifiance on education or society is indisputable.Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:01, 14 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. A rare Keep in this flood of Doctor Who AFD nominations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vislor Turlough[edit]

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

As much as I like Turlough, he does not meet SIGCOV. He is generally notable in the series and has grounds for potentially passing GNG, but there quite literally exists no sources for him that establish his notability separately. He should probably be merged into the Companions article. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who) While the character is notable, there's nothing here worth keeping. An editor could gather sources and recreate the article in future. U-Mos (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent notability from the series itself. Not suitable for an article without WP:SIGCOV about him in direct detail. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Companion (Doctor Who). Likely enough search term to not be hard deleted Dronebogus (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I'm not entirely sure each companion needs an article, I see no value in deleting the article on a single companion when all the others have articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you know of WP:OTHERSTUFF. And bundling articles often leads to problems if a select few are indeed notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely I do, but that doesn't invalidate my comment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering multiple companion articles have been nominated for deletion, it does seem an odd stance to me - evidently if more than one nomination were successful, then there would be more than one companion without an article. Also worth noting that Katarina (Doctor Who) was recently redirected. U-Mos (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which also falls under the header of WP:OSE! In any case, sources have now been found to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 13 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!} 02:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep.

Has it been established that, of the 63,000 results for searching ''"Dr Who" "turlough"'' in Google there are no RS or SIGCOV? There is clearly coverage, and surely it is up to the person wanting to delete an established article to show that it is not significant, to some extent? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has enough coverage as depicted by the sources, thus illustrating notability. However, I am going to add some reception to the article to make it less in universe. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who) . Article has no reception/analysis and is just a plot summary, claims above that there is coverage are not backed up by explanation where that coverage exists. Feel free to ping me is I missed a good source mentioned somewhere, but right now what I see is standard WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update/comment: I have added some reception to the article now so it is less in universe. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but that's "listicle" level of coverage... ("#10 on his list of the "10 Most Hated Doctor Who Characters"). It's a start, and certainly more valuable content to merge than most of the plot summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough to establish individual notability for the character. Companion is a major role within the show and even then attracted media attention.Frond Dishlock (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had a look at some of the sources available at The Internet Archive and found a few that look like they contribute to the subject meeting GNG and/or would be useful to help build the article. There's a section on the character, and some other mentions, in Doctor Who : the companions by John Nathan-Turner (so not an independent source, but still usable IMO); some commentary alongside an interview with the actor in issue 17 of Fantasy Empire magazine; possibly some usable comments in Queers dig Time Lords; and some observations on the character by Peter Davison in Is there life outside the box?, for example. (@Piotrus: - I'm not sure whether you would agree with any of these.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose Thanks. You did not list any of those, and I am pressed for time ATM, so if you want me to review them, well, links would be appreciated. Otherwise I can only say that this is the case of WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Fair point. I've added some links. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are secondary sources after all, which I believe fullfill the requirements of WP:GNG. As some, like Companions: Fifty Years of Doctor Who Assistants are quite easy to find in a usual WP:BEFORE search, I have to agree with Rick Jelliffe that a discussion why those should not fullfill WP:GNG should have been provided by the nominator. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 13 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 03:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isiah Collie[edit]

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

10 appearances for the Bahamas national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This piece is a good start, but not enough. JTtheOG (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bahamas. JTtheOG (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:32, 8 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!} 02:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tara McGrath[edit]

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

Person fails WP:GNG and is WP:TOOSOON as she has currently not been confirmed to the position of United States Attorney for the Southern District of California. While secondary sources seem to exist per a WP:BEFORE check, they all pertain solely to the nomination announcement itself and lack either the neutrality or needed WP:SIGCOV needed to keep the article in the mainspace as is. Let'srun (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Draftify Draftify per this discussion Snickers2686 (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Agree that this is one of those WP:TOOSOON situations where the timing is not quite right...but the situation could easily change within the next six months or so, so it's best not to waste all the time and effort that has already gone into getting the article this far. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:50, 10 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!} 01:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Saintil[edit]

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

Two appearances for the United States Virgin Islands national soccer team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found passing mentions of his high school and college career on Newspapers.com (1 2). Not much else. JTtheOG (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Caribbean, and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 13:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:31, 8 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. ^Complex/_Rational 01:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Monteiro[edit]

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

Being a three-star college football recruit (on a five-star scale) is not notable, this article indicates there are over 2,000 three-star recruits every year. This is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON, if Monteiro has a notable college career it can be recreated, but for now there isn't much in terms of notability. Yes, they have a few articles about their commitment to Pittsburgh, but fails WP:YOUNGATH as the coverage is routine and not substantial. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Way WP:TOOSOON, especially for a three-star recruit who may or may not ever become notable. Cbl62 (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for TOOSOON. A mid level college player isn't terribly notable, there are several hundred a year that show up on the sports scene. This isn't Michael Jordan in high school, it's a kid that's average-good in doing what may others do. Oaktree b (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify. I did find one significant source [50] that doesn't seem to be based on the same press release as the others (such as [51][52]). Other than that, the best I could find was a match report that doesn't really cover him outside of that single game. Alvaldi (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Absolutely too soon. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely TOOSOON. Many 5-star recruits (of which there are only 30 or so in each cycle) don't meet GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:09, 11 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 Class (2016 TV series). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coal Hill School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite being a frequently recurring location and the main setting of an entire show, the location itself doesn't display individual notability. Outside of one Radio Times article I found discussing it in depth, it doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article doesn't meet WP:GNG without reliable third-party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Class (2016 TV series). I could not find evidence of significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources, but I always think that redirection is a better solution than outright deletion. I chose Class as a redirect target as that it is the main setting for the show and would seem more fitting than Doctor Who where it plays a more minor role by comparison. I would not entirely opposed to deletion, but since a viable redirect target does exist, I think that is preferable over that option as it would help readers. Aoba47 (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect due to this failing WP:GNG and being just an unencyclopedic plot summary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 12 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 merge‎ to The Time Meddler. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Monk (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

An antagonist who appeared twice in Doctor Who's television history, and has generally been confined to spin-off media since. I can't find any sources relating to him, and thus I don't believe he meets GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable figure in the TV's show history with an ongoing afterlife in other media and some sources already existing in the article. Rufus Hound has discussed the character in recent interviews, so there's scope for improvement. U-Mos (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out Hound was quoted from a twitter conversation, not interviewed, but it was still reported by reliable sources. I've added that and brought across some other material to start a development section on the article. U-Mos (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An interesting, useful, and, as far as my knowledge goes, accurate article. I should be sorry to see it removed. Charles.bowyer (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles.bowyer WP:ITSINTERESTING, WP:ITSUSEFUL... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to The Time Meddler or List of Doctor Who villains. There's a clear WP:ATD and no evidence of notability or significance in the article. WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a valid reason to keep. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Time Meddler. Some bits of genuine information but no-one has provided sources that say, in big red letters, “THIS IS NOTABLE”. The excuses to keep the article are really not good, like WP:JUSTNOTABLE, WP:INTERESTING, WP:USEFUL, WP:TRUE, and WP:PLEASEDONT

Dronebogus (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Time Meddler or List of Doctor Who villains. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 14:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to articles above, unless someone improves this with reception/analysis section so that it meets GNG. Right now it's mostly a plot summary WP:FANCRUFT, I fear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to The Time Meddler. Open minded on target, but there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to support a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:36, 13 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 merge‎ to UNIT. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of UNIT personnel[edit]

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

Article relies excessively on primary sources and focuses entirely on mostly minor one off characters. While some characters, such as Kate Stewart and Osgood, are recurring and make sense to have some mention on Wikipedia, many of the other characters here just generally lack notability. The contents of this article can probably just be merged with the Doctor Who Supporting Characters article, as well as the main article for UNIT. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis a list article is a more sensible way of recording minor characters in Dr Who. It would be excessive (and wouldn't solve the perceived problem anyway) to merge this with the UNIT article. Sionk (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Light Merge to UNIT - Most of the characters on this list are minor characters that only appeared in a single episode. The actual major, reoccurring characters should certainly be described on the main UNIT article, if they are not already, but the issue of a merge being excessive is not really relevant because most of the the entries on this list should not be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to UNIT per above Dronebogus (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. I'm not a Whovian but the sourcing tends to be reasonably deep on Doctor-Who-as-a-whole, and appendix style spinoff articles are fine on sufficiently notable topics. Lists like this are fine, as long as the sourcing in the main UNIT article supports it. SnowFire (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to UNIT#Prominent members of UNIT. It is a list full of minor plotcruft; Wikipedia is not FANDOM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/selective merge per Rorshacma. Most of the entries are unsourced. This is already covered in the main article, in a way that meets Wikipedia standards. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agree with above. NavjotSR (talk) 16:05, 4 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!} 00:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or selectively merge per above. Would have to leave it to those of greater Whovian expertise to judge how much mergeable content there actually is here. -- Visviva (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very selective merge Fails WP:LISTN. The major characters can be merged, the ones who appear in a single episode should not be. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and redirect to UNIT per Rorshacma and ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. Keep voters fail to provide an argument beyond WP:ITSUSEFUL, sadly, that's not enough and we need to respect WP:LISTN/WP:GNG. See also WP:FANCRUFT. Articles that consist solely of plot summary (and lists) are not very encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:06, 9 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 merge‎ to Highway 90 (Israel–Palestine) (thanks to Davey2010 for carrying out the merger). ^Complex/_Rational 01:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 West Bank bus crash[edit]

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

Fails WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWS. The crash received a brief spike of coverage at the time but there is no indication of coverage beyond that, either in the article or in a search for sources, although the latter is complicated by noisy query results. BilledMammal (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Palestine. BilledMammal (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Highway 90 - there's insufficient material and notability for a standalone page, but Highway 90 is highly notable for its high accident rate [53], and this appears to be currently very underrepresented on that page given its notoriety. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Highway 90, I agree with Spiderone. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Highway 90 as a WP:ATD: the article fails WP:NOTNEWS and does not deserve a standalone article but there is some salvageable information that can be merged there. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Highway 90 - It is notable enough to be included on the H-90 page, however, it does not warrant its own page. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I assume that those suggesting a merge intend for the target to be Highway 90 (Israel–Palestine), not the redirect page Highway 90 (or the associated disambiguation page List of highways numbered 90). --Kinu ^t/_c 19:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge a sentence or two, redirect to Highway 90 (Israel–Palestine)#Accidents. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Highway 90 (Israel–Palestine) - I've merged the content from 2022 West Bank bus crash to Highway 90 (Israel–Palestine). –Davey2010^Talk 17:44, 9 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. I'm not closing this as Draftify as I doubt, after 24 years, more SIGCOV will be found. And as far as Merge, this incident is already over at Adrian Dalsey along with both references. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Guy Broomfield[edit]

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

Other than the two sources cited in the article, I am not seeing any coverage of this event. Newspapers.com has zero hits for this event and Google only shows the two in this article. Does not seem to pass WP:EVENTCRIT or WP:NCRIME, as there was nothing enduring about this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - WP:NEVENTS - Notability not yet established, only two sentences that tell us it was a murder, and who committed the crime. Needs more information. I cannot find any sourcing on the web that gives a motive for the murder, or any other information except what is already in the article. After searching Google and the web in general, it's odd that there was not a lot of coverage on this event. — Maile (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This homicide is not that odd. The second citation explains that the crime was plea-bargained to involuntary manslaughter (3 years), and it was followed by a wrongful death civil suit.[54] Young heir shoots his mother's new boyfriend after an argument, but sustained media interest is not apparent. But for the killer and victim being related to more famous people, the crime would be mundane. • Gene93k (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No long term coverage or consequences. Fails WP:NEVENTS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator's assessment is correct. A rather ordinary crime with a blip of sensation. Convincing evidence of lasting RS interest or impact not found. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Adrian Dalsey#Family, because the main factor of media interest here seems to be the connection with DHL. Deckkohl (talk) 14:42, 10 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!} 00:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Annabella[edit]

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

I see nothing that lifts this specific individual hotel up to the standards of WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 00:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 00:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article does not include independent sources, and after spending time researching sources, I have found none showing this property to fill the criteria for notability for WP:NCORP or WP:LOCAL. Additionally there is information about the rooms and geographic location of the property which is not cited.

Editchecker123 (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have the same concerns as those above, which is a shame as I love Balatonfüred. I also fear that Hotel Marina Balatonfüred and Hotel Silverine Lake Resort may have the same issues and may be worth nominating for deletion as well if this one ends up being deleted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing doesn't pass WP:GNG, there's no GEOLAND argument in its favour, either. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:03, 7 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.