< March 02	March 04 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2020 Libertarian National Convention#Chair election. $Salvio giuliano$ 22:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joe Bishop-Henchman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Note that being national chair of a minor party does not confer presumed notability. The sources overwhelmingly consist of run-of-the-mill campaign/election coverage, trivial mentions, and WP:PRIMARY/non-RS. My WP:BEFORE search across multiple search engines found no WP:RS-based significant coverage of him. As an alternative to outright deletion, I propose a redirect to 2020 Libertarian National Convention#Chair election. Sal2100 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Politicians, Libertarianism, and Washington, D.C.. Sal2100 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Sal2100 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 23:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sal2100 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to 2020 Libertarian National Convention#Chair election. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the sources are not enough for notability. A lot of the keep argument seemed to assert notability rather than explaining how the article meets the notability guidelines. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glen J. Smith[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NPOL as he hasn't held state-wide public office, at the very least. Bedivere (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG. Chairs of state parties often are notable. Andre🚐 22:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This person, notable primarily as the chair of a state-level political party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the article isn't referenced well enough to get them over WP:GNG. This is not what it takes to make a political operative notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --Bedivere (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody is saying it's an "automatic" pass. This barely passes WP:GNG as this person is a state party chair as well as a gubernatorial candidate, and it has 3 sources that are reliable for Virgin Islands purposes. Andre🚐 22:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The three sources in the article are entirely superficial: two aren't even about him and just drop his name, while the other only drops his name in the context of being a candidate for lieutenant governor. Curbon7 (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Caribbean, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leaning keep. I would say that there is just enough coverage in sources for the holder of a statewide office leading a globally prominent political party. BD2412 T 22:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: As usual, state party chairs are not inherently notable ex officio but may be if they receive significant coverage. However, a search appears to show that the only coverage that appears to exist on this subject are entirely passing mentions; thus with no indication of WP:SIGCOV, he does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Territory-wide news sources and chair of the Virgin Islands Democratic Party. Especially in a smaller U.S. state or territory, a political figure like Smith is notable. Scanlan (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being the chair of a local party does not make the person notable. See WP:POLOUTCOMES "Leaders of major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) parties are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons." Bedivere (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mind providing some of these "territory-wide news sources", as I've been unable to locate any besides very passing mentions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Only passing mentions of the subject seem to exist. Doesn't come even close to meeting WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceThomson (talk • contribs) 08:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Passing mentions are not enough to establish notability. Fails GNG. Springnuts (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the sourcing sufficient or is it not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - sourcing is not sufficient, as my !vote above. Springnuts (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage only passing mentions fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Agua Fria Union High School District. History is under the redirect if folks want to merge. Star Mississippi 23:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agua Fria, Arizona[edit]

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

Another case of "can we please read the cited work, please," because the stage stop claim is backed by a text which goes on to say: "Even Marshall Trimble, the offical state historian for the state of Arizona has told me that there is not now, nor has ever been, an Agua Fria, Arizona. There was a ranch, and a stagecoach rest stop named Agua Fria, but even at that, the rest stop was in 1875-1876 and there were no Arizona Rangers in 1875-1876." On that basis, I see no to keep this article. Mangoe (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Agua Fria Union High School District, which contains the area where this place was. Nate • (chatter) 23:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Nate. The stagecoach stop is an interesting bit of history, but I agree that it's not enough for a full-blown article Elinruby (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2002 Vitim event[edit]

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

At noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology#Candidate for AFD - "2002_Vitim_event", this appears to be an unremarkable event that did not generate any WP:SIGCOV. Fireball events of comparable magnitude are not uncommon. The only sources covering this event only mention it in passing or are fringe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia, Science and Paranormal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per my comments to that effect at WP:GEOLOGY. tried to find sources, only found citogenesis and conspiracy theories. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Unable to find any reliable sources from which to create an article. In addition, I looked at fireballs reported by the US Government sensors for April 15, 1988, to February 19, 2023 and found that the "2002 Vitim event" at 2 / 4-5 (?) kilotons is typical of such events and completely lacks any notability. In fact, according that data, at 2 / 4-5 (?) kilotons, the "2002 Vitim event" is quite small compared to the largest known event, 440 kilotons, which happened February 15, 2013. Paul H. (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete If it were true that the situation on the ground was similar to the Tunguska event, then it would be a different story. But with respect to the reported 100 square kilometers of burnt trees, the CCNet source is quite clear: "How should these stories be interpreted? With skepticism, I believe. A meteoritic explosion of 2 kilotons energy taking place at an altitude of 30 km is unlikely to have generated a serious shock wave or induced seismic signals. It is extremely unlikely to have started a forest fire". Remove this from the article and what you are left with is a rather common bolide event. If we have a list of such events, mention it there but I am afraid this is not enough for an own article. --Proofreader (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete There are no good sources for this being anything but a run of the mill bolide.

AtFirstLight (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and falls short of meeting WP:SIGCOV and thus fails WP:GNG, although I am open to considering someone else’s take on this. Shawn Teller (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Nursall[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced BLP of a filmmaker, not making any strong claim to passing our notability criteria for filmmakers. The only notability claim even being attempted here is that he exists, which is not automatically enough in and of itself, and there's absolutely no sourcing being shown to demonstrate that he or his work have been a subject of coverage and analysis in real media. There were previously sources here, but right across the board they were primary sources of the staff-profile and film-credit-metasourced-to-itself varieties, not notability-building media coverage -- and even on a search for other sources, I can't find much of anything better.
Simply existing is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete no refs in the article and I could not make up for it searching independently. No notability as per WP:GNG. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, not finding significant coverage of the subject and not getting any indications that it might exist either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete a search in Google did not yield in much. Fails notability.Pershkoviski (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I also could not find much on this. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Ducas (investor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There was a flash of coverage when Ducas rose to attention as a young investor, but there has been nothing since to indicate he's a notable businessperson. I do not believe the BI list reaches the level of ANYBIO Star Mississippi 19:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete It looks like Ducas Capital never got any further than a Wordpress blog, His consulting business was recently wound up. MNewnham (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Majority of coverage dates from 2013 to 2015 and article has existed since 2014. If was notable for 9 years, should still be notable. Coverage was also from reputable sources including Forbes, CNBC, Business Insider. HPQMacintosh (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC) — HPQMacintosh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Finance. Star Mississippi 19:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I only find one significant source, the Forbes (Strauss) article. There are lots of commercial links to his training modules, but nothing independent. Looking through the page history I found at least six SPA's, each with only a handful of edits. I suspect socking. The most recent one was in 2019 (User:Betternet4211) so perhaps this has run its course (maybe except for the one appearing here). This fellow is looking like a flash-in-the-pan, as I see no new content; training courses are undated but everything else dates from 2014-2017. Lamona (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kato (producer)[edit]

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

Standing CoI and sourcing issues which appear to have existed for the duration of the article's existence. Subject does not pass notability based on coverage present and I found nothing additional QuietHere (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Virginia. QuietHere (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 18:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - He has a lot of credits but is usually one of several producers in remixes of previously-released songs by other musicians, and thus he only appears as one name in voluminous credit lists. His own mixtapes are only available at typical self-upload sites, which are the origins of the article's attempted ref-bombing. Those items have no pro reviews that I can find, and I would not be surprised if many of them are unauthorized. His personal biography shows signs of signs of being written by himself, rather than reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muzaffer Ali[edit]

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

Non-notable singer moved to draft but returned to main without noticeable improvement. Does not appear to pass WP:NMUSIC and search reveals no additional coverage. Eagleash (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, India, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG upcoming not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 17:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 18:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per above plus no apparent prospects for de-orphaning. QuietHere (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tukwini Mandela[edit]

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

I question whether this granddaughter of Nelson Mandela has achieved sufficient notability to warrant an article of her own. There's a lot of implicit inherited notability in play here. Third-party coverage of Tukwini Mandela personally seems to consist of passing mentions, promotional coverage of that winery business, and a couple puff pieces and interviews. Compare Ndileka Mandela, Mandla Mandela, Ndaba Mandela and Zoleka Mandela, all of which have reasonable claims to personal notability (well, not too hot on Zoleka actually). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and South Africa. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 17:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 18:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep After some digging, I found sources about her in GQ, South African History Online, ITV, Parade Magazine, NPR, BET, BBC News, The Guardian, Paste Magazine, Food Republic, The Florida Times-Union, IOL, INC., South Florida Sun-Sentinel, WSJ, and The Independent to name a few. I originally was going to say the page should be redirected to Mandela family, but after finding these sources, I changed my mind.Historyday01 (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep based on the sources above, she meets WP:GNG. We can't control why mainstream outlets cover someone, but the fact is that she's gotten enough coverage to meet the bar. Park3r (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Holloways Beach, Queensland. Sandstein 19:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Holloway Beach, Queensland[edit]

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

Holloway Beach, Queensland, as in opposite to Holloways Beach, Queensland is a non-existing entity. It exist solely as a probably orphaned entry in the Queensland place names search database. A primary examination yields, that the relevant parts of the database entries for Holloway Beach, the so-called town, and Holloways Beach, the suburb, are practically identical:

For Holloway Beach:

"Town originally named as Holloway by Surveyor-General 16 April 1951. Name changed to Holloway Beach by Queensland Place Names Board, effective from 1 April 1971."

For Holloways Beach:

"Original township was named Holloway by Surveyor-General 16 April 1951. Re-named as Holloway Beach by Queensland Place Names Board on 1 April 1971."

The Holloway entry ends thus, while the Holloways entry continues. It is improbable that different entities with identical histories would have been subject to the same name change on the same day.

Further to that, the name "Holloway Beach" for all practical intents and purposes does not exist. In searches it is unfindable in documents referring to it as a current entity any time after 1981, the year when it was "named and bounded as the locality of Holloways Beach".

Secondly, on location it is unknown: there are no signs or anything else that would point to anything like "Holloway Beach", let alone a town of that name, which alone would beg the question of any relevance.

The conclusion can only be, that this place - Holloway Beach - only exists as a database entry without any practical relevance, probably an orphan, a remainder of a double entry or something to that extent. The vague geo-co-ordinates associated with the database entry also do not provide any help in determining any practical existence of any entity named "Holloway Beach" today.

In well considered conclusion I therefore can only recommend the deletion of the "Holloway Beach" article. This even more so, as the article does not contain any relevant information that is not provided in the "Holloways Beach" article. Oalexander (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge: As someone who writes content about Queensland geography and knows how to interpret the Queensland Place Names database, many Queensland places are officially designated as both towns and localities/suburbs in Queensland. It is very common and it is not a case of needing to be forced to be "one or the other". This is just one example with the slight oddity here is that the two have slightly different names, which is presumably why there are two Wikipedia articles. The town most certainly exists (aerial views shows a urban area) and the database entry is not an orphan or some other database error. I had correspondence with the Qld Govt geospatial team in October 2022 about updates in relation to that particular town entry, which is now sitting as a work order CSREF-877 waiting to be implemented, so clearly the Qld Govt don't share this view that it's some kind of database anomaly. However, from a Wikipedia perspective, we don't need two articles, so merging the town article into the Holloways Beach, Queensland would be a reasonable way forward. Kerry (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure if there is anything to merge. It is an article based on a questionable database entry ("slight Oddity"). And then there are arguments like "I know how to interpret". And the Queensland government will look into it. All that about something what in real life is not detectable.

"which is presumably why there are two Wikipedia articles." - That's because you created one of them.

Oalexander (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect. Previous name for Halloways Beach. Seems like it will be a common search term. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge seems to be the same place or at least that the distinction between them isn't sensible even if they are different. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 17:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Antonio Paone[edit]

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

Antonio Paone

There are at least two problems with this article.

First, it is undisclosed paid editing, by a now-blocked undisclosed paid editor. An article almost identical to this one was created on 7 December 2022 in article space, and was then (correctly) moved to draft space by User:MarioGom. This article was then re-created on 26 February 2023 in article space, and the originator was blocked on 27 February 2023. Draft space is already occupied by a copy of this article, which is also undisclosed paid editing, so that this copy can be moved to a bit bucket.

Second, this article, as written, does not establish general notability, because it does not speak for itself, and does not discuss what third parties have written about the subject. It only says what his flack says about him. It says that he exists; we knew that. He likely has been written about by independent secondary sources to a significant extent, but this piece does not summarize those writings. This article does not establish biographical notability. So this article can be deleted while a copy of it is already in draft space. There is no need to review the 17 references, at least at this time, because they should verify what is in the body of the article, which says that he exists. We don't need to do the flack's work for him.

The photograph states that it is the submitter's own work, but it was taken in the subject's mansion, because the submitter is working for the subject. But the submitter has already been correctly blocked.

If a neutral editor wants to develop an article about the subject, the copy of this article in draft space can be a start, but is not currently ready for article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, and Italy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: spam that shouldn't have ever made into mainspace in the first place. MarioGom (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per UPE/COI and Notability concern as highlighted by the norminator.Epcc12345 (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete ref bombed out the wazoo, Forbes contributor piece and a bunch of PR fluff pieces are all I find. Oaktree b (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 17:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pakistan National English School[edit]

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

Mostly routine coverage in form of news reports, fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Pakistan, and Yemen. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - the coverage is better than for some schools I've seen but it's way short of WP:SIRS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Betcha (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Soft delete reversed via WP:RFU in order to relist at AFD. UtherSRG (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Tennessee. UtherSRG (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Same as the last vote, no sources other than the phrase being used in various projects. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which was a whole 8 days ago. Unless they've gotten some miraculous record deal in the last week, nothing has changed. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep passes #5 of WP:BAND. The band has released two or more albums (Falling and Feels Like We've Been Here Before) on a major record label (Atlantic Record). [1] [2] Can definitely include more refs into the article though. GR86 (📱) 16:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note this editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting since the page is ineligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 17:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: One tenet of NBAND alone is not enough to keep this, and it does not appear they pass any others. QuietHere (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Min zin[edit]

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

Fails WP:BEFORE, somewhat difficult as there is a well-known Burmese scholar named Min Zin. Unclear that this is a stand-alone and noteworthy topic. Images are taken from the Aka (another Burmese martial art style). Kazamzam (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete — I was also unable to find RS documenting this. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 15:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 17:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to be covered in any reliable sources. It's possible that there's some transliteration issue where it's better known by another name, but in all likelihood it's just not notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio giuliano$ 17:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mason County Sculpture Trail[edit]

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

Minor local tourist attraction sourced only to promotional local web sites and local news. In spirit, this is a museum, which would fall under WP:NONPROFIT and which appears to fail the test of being a "nationally well-known local organization" from that notability guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I spent a lot of time trying to clean up this WP:DCGAR per the copyright issues, and cannot find any reason to think this article meets notability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note to closing admin; please do not delete the talk page, as it contains GAN and DYK history worth saving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails any reasonable metric of notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Local landmarks can be mentioned at Ludington,_Michigan#Landmarks, or in the page on the county. We don't need an article, though, particularly one of dubious provenance. XOR'easter (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio giuliano$ 12:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shuaib Qureshi[edit]

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

Fails to demonstrate the notability per WP:BASIC, first ambassador to the USSR wouldn't make him notable. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 15:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vegan Women Summit. While the target remains an article, the argument to redirect is quite strong; if it has similar problems, it should be sent to AfD. Clear consensus that the subject isn't currently notable. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jennifer Stojkovic[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer and entrepreneur, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for writers or entrepreneurs. As always, neither writers nor entrepreneurs are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and instead have to surpass certain specific standards of achievement and sourceability -- but the notability claim here boils down to the fact that she exists, and the referencing is parked almost entirely on blogs, primary sources and WP:SPIP with virtually no evidence of any reliable source coverage about her being shown at all -- out of seventeen footnotes, the only one that actually comes from a real WP:GNG-worthy media outlet just glancingly namechecks her existence without being about her in any non-trivial sense.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is about all I can find about her [3]. I'd redirect to the Vegan Woman Summit article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The Vegan Women Summit article suffers from mostly the same problems as this one. Jdcooper (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zen Tea & Coffee[edit]

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

Not notable. It is a cafe. Roxy the dog 14:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Non-notable local business. I'm only getting hits on Zen things and tea/coffee. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: As Oaktree b said, it's a non-notable local business. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - coffee company that fails WP:NCORP Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zhu Fulin[edit]

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

Only notability comes out of the corruption charges. Case of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The sources in the article are enough for GNG. There are more sources at the end of the Baidu Baike article Mucube (talk • contribs) 02:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Has Reuters and the biggest news sites in China as sources, so there's GNG.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Sourcing meets WP:GNG. BLP1E requires that the subject plays a small role in the individual event, which isn't the case here (see also WP:NOT1E). WJ94 (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Federalism#Division of powers. Although there are reasonable arguments that this topic could merit a standalone article, there is clear consensus that the basic concept is covered at the proposed target, and that the material as it stands is not encyclopedic. As such there is currently a consensus to redirect, but this does not preclude a future article supported by good sources, particularly if the material gets too unwieldy at Federalism. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Balance of power (federalism)[edit]

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

No refs on the page, written like a bad essay and needs WP:TNT

Also seems odd to me that there is a US navbox at the bottom of the page when the page doesn't mention the USA at all as far as I can tell JMWt (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. The problem is that the article was created as a stub with no citations in 2007, and remains a not-much-larger stub with no citations today. Sources for improving the article can be found on Google books and Google scholar. That an article is a stub is not a valid reason for deletion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a valid reason in that the page is bad and has been unreferenced since at least 2007. I have no doubt that one could find scholarly papers on the subject, but someone actually needs to do it and not leave an unreferenced bad university essay as a stub. WP:TNT JMWt (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Agree this reads as an essay that came from the top of someone's head. Federalism#Division_of_powers already covers the concept, though sadly also unsourced. The Google searches above can be helpful for that page. Reywas92^Talk 14:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That Federalism#Division_of_powers coverts a similar topic would justify making the page at Balance of power (federalism) a redirect.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect Division of powers is conceptually inseparable from federalism. I agree with Terrance the James' 2012 comment on the article's talk page, and I think that this should simply be a redirect to the section on Federalism. The caveat here is that the section on that page faces the same lack of sourcing that this article does. If not kept as a redirect, I at least agree with the WP:TNT restart idea. Nmarshall25 (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Federalism#Division_of_powers. While it is true that the proposed target section has no inline references, it may be that some of the Federalism#Sources are relevant. One can put ((Unreferenced section)) on it now, and in 2039 if it is still uncited then delete both section and redirect. jnestorius^(talk) 23:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See note below - they cover related material but this one is about the power dynamic rather than the institutions. Perhaps merging would be appropriate, but the division of powers section in Federalism is a bit of a rambling mess with no citations either.Oblivy (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - An older article that is hurt by new rules that seemingly were created to aide deletion. It's important information and deleting it does not make the site better.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a valid keep rationale. Deletion policies exist for a reason, and articles are not exempted simply because they were created before we realized that we needed to improve our standards. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and improve - This is not a crackpot theory and different from the discussion of Division of Powers which is discussed in the Federalism article (which focuses mainly on institutions rather than the balance of power). It needs some conceptual organization and copyediting. For my part, I added two citations which are quite on-point.Oblivy (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Article already exists as separation of powers. There doesn't appear to be anything in this article worth merging into that one. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strictly speaking, you are right there is nothing worth merging into separation of powers but that's because that article covers an unrelated topic (power sharing among institutions vs regions). As noted above there may be a rationale for merging into Federalism#Division_of_powers which covers (IMHO poorly) similar material.Oblivy (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: The subject is notable, but it isn’t clear whether it rises to a level sufficient to justify a standalone article separate from the federalism article. It’s a challenging decision, because there are good policy-based arguments for deleting. On the other hand, there are also good policy-based arguments for keeping. Perhaps merging or simply redirecting to the relevant section in the federalism article would be options to consider? Shawn Teller (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Supplication. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Supplicant[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years, nothing I can find meets WP:GNG. Also WP:NOTDICTIONARY JMWt (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England. JMWt (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above. Nonetheless, on a personal note, I learned something of interest to me. Recently when I was clearing away old stuff from my office I came across a note that informed me that I had been given leave to supplicate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. I was surprised at the odd wording, but that's not enough to justify keeping the article. Athel cb (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to supplication. If sources can be found, then the information about universities can be retained at the target page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This hasn't happened to me as an AfD closer before, but this discussion is useless because it consists mostly of opinions that are without merit in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. The nominator's statements consist only of barely coherent rants, and the first "keep" opinion makes basically no argument (although it would be difficult to make any given the nomination). Only the second "keep" opinion makes reasonable arguments. But there's no hope of anything resembling consensus resulting from this mess, even if I were to relist it. Anybody who is not WikiUpdater92 is free to renominate this if there is a reasonable case for deletion to be made. And WikiUpdater92, if you continue in this vein, you'll likely be blocked. Sandstein 19:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Johnny Ibrahim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non neutral, false statements, non viable references WikiUpdater92 (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WikiUpdater92 I think you accidentally posted the wrong page here. PageName have been deleted since the 2009. Carpimaps (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed it for you. Carpimaps (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Lebanon, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I think it could be improved, but I dont think it deserved to be deleted PalauanReich (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 11:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: because ambassadors have imternational duties, it is not easy for one to be non-notable, and the two sources there already focus on Ibrahim and are arguably significant coverage, per WP:GNG. Also, the rejection of an ambassador by a pope is notable in itself. Moonraker (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~DELETE~~

The information published is defamatory and ill founded. The only source that refers to Amb. Ibrahim relays false information published initially on a Lebanese news website. The said website was ordered by the competent Tribunal to delete all reference to Ambassador Ibrahim from its website and archives.

The Pope, or the Holy See, never declared, announced, or communicated that the nomination was rejected. Ambassador Ibrahim never commented on the defamatory news except before the Court of Law. He never admitted or denied anything.

Defamatory and false information shall not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Recalling that this article was published on Wikipedia 5 years after the false news in the media. Is the author of this article linked to those indicted by the Court of Law few years ago! Where is the public interest in diffusing false, defamatory, obsolete, and irrelevant information 5 years after!!! WikiUpdater92 (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiUpdater92, instead of making BOLDED accusations, why don't you try to improve the article by editing? That's typically how we handle questionable material on Wikipedia, by improving article content, not laying down condemnations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

● Delete.

How do you improve fake news?

Reference article "1" is ill-based, and article "2" is entirely irrelevant not even talking about the Ambassador or the Pope. WikiUpdater92 (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your nomination is considered your "Delete" vote so I'm striking your second vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Four keep votes to one weak delete, almost a week later (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mythology of Stargate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Suffers from issues related to WP:NOTPLOT; while it can source its information to some published sources, it fails to make a compelling argument as to why it has to be a standalone article and not just discussed in the main articles of each subseries. "Wikipedia treats creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." This is entirely plot and no context. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete. The topic may be notable. The execution begs for WP:TNT. It's 99% WP:FANCRUFTy plot summary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I agree that there is a problem with WP:NOTPLOT at the moment. But the topic is quite clearly notable based on the secondary sources present in the article, those listed in the previous deletion discussion, those listed by sgeureka at Talk:Mythology of Stargate#Possible sources for improvement and this academic paper. These can be used to fix the problems. When they are used, this would be too large a section to conveniently fit into the articles of the series. Also there is a small amount of commentary present rather than "entirely plot" (e.g. from Beeler and Dickson). As this is not yet much, I also would have no great problem with a proper merge - which also should include a reasonable amount plot summary for understanding the commentary - even though I think that's the worse solution. Entire deletion is not warranted as some of the material here would be included in a "good" encyclopedic article in the end. Daranios (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I have dead tree resources on this topic. Will comment more over the weekend. The one issue, however, is "what is 'mythology' in this context?" Assuming we're going to allow the term to cover the show's milieu and associated fictional elements, much like a list of characters, is the starting point from which I'm going to examine sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- So, I have three of the books listed in the article: Elrod, Storm, and Beeler's Reading Stargate. I also have Keith Topping, Beyond the Gate: The Unofficial and Unauthorized Guide to Stargate SG-1, Tolworth, Telos: 2002. 978-1903889503, which gives per-episode breakdowns including influences, reactions, tie ins, and other things that go far beyond simple plot summary. What does anyone need and/or want to know? Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Jclemens: How about adding a couple of real-world mythological influences from each of those books to the article? That would settle the discussion here (if it isn't already) and put the kybosh on any further AfD nominations. I'll add a bit from Scerri and that should sort it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Would love to if I had the time, but at this point I'm looking for an "ask" from a delete !voter that they state that, if sourced, would change their mind. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Maybe ping them? Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I largely agree with Piotrus that some TNT would be handy in improving this article. The current text does a good job of concealing and ignoring the multiple reliable sources that it either cites in the text or lists as further reading. What the article should be doing is explaining, diagramming, constructing tables showing the many curious connections and correlations between Stargate's mythology and Earth's historically-constructed mythologies, including those of classical Greece and Rome, those of the ancient Egyptians, and those of the Aztecs. Some of these are detailed in "Mythology in Science Fiction" by Mariella Scerri and David Zammit in SFRA Review 316, Spring 2016, pages 15–21. Perhaps I'll add a bit of that to the article. As Daranios has noted above, several of the essays in Stepping through the Stargate (edited by P. N. Elrod and Roxanne Conrad, ISBN 978-1-9321-0032-7, Benbella Books, 2004), including Sue E. Linder-Linsley's essay "Exploring the archeology of Stargate SG-1" and the essays by Fran Terry, Sten Odenwald, and Bradley H. Sinor in the same collection all look to be highly informative on the subject. In short, this is a fascinating and clearly notable subject imprisoned in a massive straitjacket of NOTPLOT-y fancruft. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I've added some material from Scerri & Zammit; and some more from Krueger, Frederic (2017). "The Stargate Simulacrum: Ancient Egypt, Ancient Aliens, and Postmodern Dynamics of Occulture". Aegyptiaca. Journal of the History of Reception of Ancient Egypt. 1: 47–74., another useful source; and Ndalianis, Angela (2010). "Stargate SG-1". In David Lavery (ed.). The Essential Cult TV Reader. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 237–243. ISBN 978-0-8131-2568-8.. There seem to be many more such academic Reliable Sources out there, by the way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as an overview anchor for this 17+ season spanning franchise. Yes, this is sub-par, but it's still way more preferable than the original dozens of stand-alone subarticles that once were there. If anything, Ori (Stargate) (which I started developing as a proof-of-concept for sources before working life abruptly reduced my wiki time) should be merged here. In addition to the sources mentioned above, I found the TV Zone specials (e.g.) as excellent development sources for the latter four seasons of SG-1; I still have them at home, but I lack the time and interest to develop this. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Argument to draftify is weakened by the absence of anyone saying they wish to work on it, and by the complete absence of sourcing; we aren't well served by draftifying original research. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chilean pharmaceutical policy[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years, does not appear to me to be a way to verify the claims asserted. We could potentially redirect to Essential medicines policies but the section on Chile is unreferenced and there may be questions about whether that page needs WP:TNT as well. JMWt (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Chile. JMWt (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per OP. I would consider altering my vote if sufficient sources were added establishing GNG. — Czello 09:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as it stands. There is perhaps a good and even important article waiting to be written, but this isn't it. Athel cb (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Unfortunately I agree with the above commenters. I think a better article could and should be written, and eventual deletion does not mean it should not be recreated. Much on the contrary, the topic has much potential. Bedivere (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move to draft, as this appears to be a notable topic with, at least, potential for improvement. BD2412 T 17:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. One reason why I would like to see a good article on this subject (which I wouldn't be competent to write) is the following. The pharmaceutical industry in Chile is overwhelmingly dominated by two companies, Ahumadas and Cruz Verde. Together they would make a formidable obstacle to any change in the law along the lines of what is proposed in the article, but one could always hope. Athel cb (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't forget about Salcobrand. The three pharmaceuticals were involved a couple of years in a very controversial judicial case, when they colluded to increase the price of medicines. Bedivere (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. I see from the Internet that Salcobrand is indeed a major player, but for some reason I have never encountered it. My experience of Chile is mainly limited to Santiago, Valparaíso-Viña and Valdivia, and there are plenty of things I don't know. Athel cb (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio giuliano$ 13:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tuliram Ronghang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tuliram Ronghang

Minor Indian politician, about whom article was deleted in 2020. Deletion of article is currently at Deletion Review, which is in the process of endorsing the 2020 deletion, while acknowledging that consensus can change. So this stub has been created, but it does not satisfy either political notability or general notability. It says nothing about third-party coverage of the subject. There are two references, but the second one is a puff piece which is probably not independent, and is not a secondary source. The first reference is on a web site that is blocked by anti-malware protection, so it should also be considered unreliable, even if it is significant coverage.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Eastern Mirror Nagaland.com	Web site blocked	?	?	No	?
2	Hindustan Times	A puff piece	Probably not	Yes	Yes	No

The originator states that consensus has changed, but has not shown that consensus has changed, and may be making a good-faith mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Assam. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 09:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: There is also a running discussion about a member. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kali Kumar Tongchangya. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 09:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Generally many deletion discussion of Members of the Autonomous District Councils of India are kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia. (Note: I am creator of this article and also note that I voted Delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia and after the closing of discussionn, I got that they are notable) 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 09:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: We keep articles about members of sub national parliaments of India because the government of that parliament federal or similar systems of government and Chakma Autonomous District Council also have federal or similar systems of government. And as per as this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia, ADCs are subnational parliament so this article passes WP:NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 09:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: WP:NSUBPOL (an explanation of WP:NPOL which explains notability about sub national parliaments of different countries) says "Members of the Autonomous District Councils may have presumed notability.". 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 09:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for a start the subject fails WP:NPOL. The relevant language there is that people who have held "state/province–wide office" in countries with federal systems of government are presumed to be notable. In India that means states or union territories. The subject is a member of Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, which is not at that level (it covers some ethnic groups living in Karbi Anglong district and West Karbi Anglong district, which are at district rather than state level). WP:NSUBPOL is an essay with no official standing, and even that doesn't say that the subject is notable.

Of the sources cited in the article, [4] is a press release and not independent of the subject (Disclaimer: This is a company press release. No HT journalist was involved in the creation of this content). [5] is a short article about the subject being elected Chief Executive Member of the council and mostly consists of quotes from a speech he made. There are lots of other articles which give limited coverage to the subject in the context of local political events, or which constitute churnalism, but I don't see the kind of significant coverage which would pass the GNG. Hut 8.5 12:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In NPOL, it is written that "state/province–wide office" because there is federal systems of government in state/province–wide office but there are some countries who has federal systems of government in their districts so we can say that Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council is an sub national parliament. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 13:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess it is a subnational parliament but that doesn't make it state level. Districts in India are a lower level than states. Hut 8.5 18:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not a city, not a district and nor a state or province. It's a self governing area and this council administrates Karbi Anglong district and West Karbi Anglong district. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 01:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Procedural Question There is a concurrent discussion about the subject happening at Deletion Review. Should this AfD run at the same time or should we let deletion review finish?

Delete. The page is unencyclopedic. A presumption of notability can always be pierced. Lack of coverage that enables us to write an article (which is the case here) means that we should not force the inclusion of an article (i.e., "article"). If there had been at least something approaching WP:NBASIC-type coverage enabling us to write a paragraph of prose, that would have been fine, but there doesn't seem to be. —Alalch E. 17:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 13:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Delete (Note: I voted endorse in the DRV.) per nom and Hut 8.5. This page is a deficiently sourced WP:BLP that IMO fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC (more on NPOL later). The sources include a reference is a press release and a short routine announcement chiefly dependent on quotes. My WP:BEFORE found some sources, e.g., this routine seven-sentence article that fails WP:SIGCOV, this source on a visit, and another puff source (i.e., opening with His dedication towards fitness has gone ahead in inspiring many other youngsters of the state and ending with a promo link to the subject's Facebook page). As per GNG, ...advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources, which the available sources fall under. NBASIC is also likewise failed. With regards to WP:NPOL, it is true that the essay WP:NSUBPOL considers that ADCs may have presumed notability, given that in one previous AfD, it was contended that As for whather the Autonomous District Councils satisfy our classification as subnational parliaments - I'd probably agree. Unfortunately, personally I don't think an essay based on a single AfD contending a debatable (at best IMO) NPOL pass is sufficient to overcome the clear failure of WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Regardless, I can see both sides, hence my vote being weak delete, and if this indeed close in keep I will reconsider whether ADCs satisfy NPOL's requirement. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gregg Hart[edit]

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

I'm not able to find any significant coverage to suggest notability. Topic is unlikely to pass WP:NSPORT. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Indiana. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Passes NCOLLATH as someone who has Have won multiple NCAA Division I national championships as an individual in an individual sport. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SIGCOV at [6]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More coverage: here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel like there has to be more coverage on someone who was runner-up in the NCAA national championship and set a high school national record, but unfortunately that was all I could find. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I cannot name a single discus thrower and I do not believe most people can either. Would I if it was featured as much on TV during primetime like College Football is? Probably. Coming in 2nd and 3rd place nationally in your sport indicates notability. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to WP:NOLYMPICS you need to have won a medal for notability to be assumed. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, ~~no SIGCOV~~ only one piece of local maybe-SIGCOV has been found despite searches. JoelleJay (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say the piece from The Indianapolis Star is likely SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, it's ok but I give considerably less weight to quote-heavy articles where much of the non-quote bits are still not independent secondary analysis (e.g. reporting what Hart "felt" or summarizing what he said in a quote prior to giving the quote), especially when it's local-interest media. JoelleJay (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete not enough WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. The Indianapolis Star piece is a start but that alone doesn't get it across the finish line for GNG. Please ping me if more coverage is found. Frank Anchor 20:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roger Tian-hung Luo[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant indepth coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Taiwan. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.
1. Xu, Yazhu 許雅筑 (2014-10-05). "駐韓6年他寫360篇遊記" [During his 6 years in Korea, he wrote 360 travel notes]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. A11.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Where are lagoons and seas, and where has it belonged to North Korea and South Korea? Roger Tian-hung Luo, deputy director of the Consular Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that the charm of "Hwajinpo" on the coast of the northeast corner of South Korea is unstoppable. Spent several summers here. In the six years since he was stationed in the Busan office in South Korea, Roger Tian-hung Luo's personal blog "Korea can also play like this" has accumulated more than 360 travel experiences and more than 12,000 photos, introducing private attractions, food and history and culture. For "playing Korea better than Koreans"."
2. Cui, Citi 崔慈悌 (2021-07-26). "前駐索羅門大使羅添宏出書籲記取教訓勿輕啟戰爭" [Former Ambassador to Solomons Roger Tian-hung Luo published a book calling for learning lessons and not starting war lightly]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Roger Tian-hung Luo, the former ambassador to Solomon Islands, will publish a new book "I am in the Solomon Islands", talking about the experience and experience of the local World War II battlefields, and reminding the world to learn from the lessons and stop wars lightly. ... Roger Tian-hung Luo returned to China urgently for treatment due to overwork when the relationship between Taiwan and Somalia was tense. Before that, he had a very good relationship with the local government and foreign missions. He interacted closely and harmoniously with all parties, and won the trust and friendship of all parties. ... Roger Tian-hung Luo liked to read war history when he was young, and he knew every battle of Guadalcanal Island, the core battlefield of the Solomon Islands. In his spare time, he visited these battlefields in the past, learned about their history, and shared his experience with members of the diplomatic corps, so as to get closer to foreign colleagues, and participated in many war commemorative ceremonies. ... Roger Tian-hung Luo's "I am in the Solomon Islands" narrates the epic stories of the year into battles and character stories. After the author's careful study and on-the-spot observation, this book is easy to read, and can quickly understand the combat history of the United States and Japan in the Solomon Islands during World War II."
3. Tu, Jumin 涂鉅旻 (2021-07-26). "前大使探索羅門二戰遺址籲切莫錯估情勢輕啟戰端" [Ex-ambassador explores the ruins of WWII in Lomon]. Liberty Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Roger Tian-hung Luo, the former Chinese ambassador to the Solomon Islands, will soon publish a new book "I am in the Solomon Islands", which records his observations of the World War II battlefield sites during his tenure in Solomon Islands. ... Roger Tian-hung Luo passed the special diplomatic examination in 1983 and entered the service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He was stationed in the Philippines, Swaziland, St. Vincent, Busan, South Korea, and served as the Solomon Islands ambassador from January 2017 to August 2019. ... At the end of 2016, the Taiwanese government appointed him as the ambassador to the Solomon Islands. He also took the post with pleasure. The following year When he went to Honiara, the capital of Somalia, to take up his new post in January, he saw relics of World War II everywhere on the island."
4. Wu, Xiuhua 吳秀華 (2017-04-10). "中華民國駐所羅門群島大使　參訪中天寺" [The Ambassador of the Republic of China to the Solomon Islands visited Zhongtian Temple]. Merit Times [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Luo Tianhong, the ambassador of the Republic of China to the Solomon Islands, went to Brisbane on official business. ... Ambassador Luo mentioned that he had a deep connection with the International Buddha's Light Association. The first time he met the master was in 1999, when Master Hsing Yun went to Swaziland. Later, he went to Busan, South Korea, so he also had contacts with Master Shenshan and the Buddha's Light Association."
5. "駐索羅門群島大使羅添宏呈遞到任國書" [Roger Tian-hung Luo, Ambassador to the Solomon Islands, presents his credentials]. 僑務電子報 (in Chinese). Overseas Community Affairs Council. Central News Agency. 2017-02-02. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Roger Tian-hung Luo, the new ambassador to the Solomon Islands, presented his credentials to the Governor of Solomon Islands, Sir Kabui. ... Luo Tianhong and his wife were accompanied by the chief guard of Suoguo, and took the courtesy car of Suoguo Governor's Mansion to the Governor's Mansion under the police car clearing the way. After arriving at the Governor's Mansion, they reviewed the guard of honor. ... Accompanied by the Secretary-General of the Governor-General's Office and the Director of Protocol of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Luo Tianhong and his wife presented their credentials to the Governor-General, Sir Kabui."
6. Wu, Yizhang 吳佲璋 (2021-07-28). "羅添宏新作《我在索羅門群島》戰地見聞彰顯和平無價" [Roger Tian-hung Luo's new work "I'm in the Solomon Islands" shows that peace is priceless]. Youth Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "The author of "I'm in the Solomon Islands" Roger Tian-hung Luo is a professional diplomat. At the end of 2016, he was appointed as the ambassador to Solomon Islands. As a lover of war history, he visited the military relics of the year in his spare time. Through historical perspectives, he successfully narrowed the distance with diplomatic missions from other countries, and thus participated in many war commemorative ceremonies."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Roger Tian-hung Luo (traditional Chinese: 羅添宏; simplified Chinese: 罗添宏) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David William Lane Greer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and appears to have competed internationally only at a junior level and did not medal. Also it looks like this is an autobiography. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. RealPharmer3 (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steve Dent[edit]

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

Seemingly NN individual with no in-depth coverage. Plenty of credits and a few passing mentions, but nothing to satisfy even the minimum requirements WP:GNG. WP:FILMMAKER is not even close. Toddst1 (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. No sign of notability via web search. Suitskvarts (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: The subject has clearly had a long career in film work, latterly in conjunction with his daughter, but searches are not finding the coverage about the subject needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Njeri Luseno[edit]

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

A quick search on Google returns 480 results and no SIGCOV at all. Only one source is provided in the article as well. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Kenya. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for lack of valid evidence of notability. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of battles involving Jats[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:SALAT, this article is a list of battles that may or may not have involved Jats, an ethnic/caste group from India. It should be deleted. ThethPunjabi (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ThethPunjabi (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, crufty material, fails WP:LISTN. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cruft is a pretty weak argument for any deletion discussion, and I question whether is actually does fail WP:LISTN. In a book by Kuldip Singh Chandpuri, Indian Military Thought, there is a small section about Jat battles. In Origins and History of Jats and Other Allied Nomadic Tribes of India by Bakhshish Singh Nijjar, it obviously recounts various battles they were a part of. This was just after a short search. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you provide a modern academic publication authored by a professional historian and point out the exact place where "Jat battles" or "battles of the Jats" or something on those lines is being treated as a legitimate group or set? Neither of these are that.

There are many non-academics who write traditional, semi-historical, semi-mythological, etc accounts of [insert caste or tribal identity], none of which are RS. Most of the times, these identities are fuzzy and there is too much neologism and appropriation of historical (and mythological) events, characters, etc into the present lore (for the lack of a better word) behind these identities, this list is basically that in wikipedia style which is why I called it cruft.

Also arguing that a book on origins and history of Jats must "obviously recount various battles they were a part of" and therefore justifies the list on its own is the same as saying that "list of battles involving Jats" is valid because "list of Jats" is valid, which is not so. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, as stated above, the focus on an ethnic group rather than a political entity or specific time period puts this outside the bounds of other List of Battles articles.Evansknight (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Evansknight: Thoughts on List of battles won by indigenous peoples of the Americas, then? Why? I Ask (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
honestly, I'd delete that article as well. to be frank, I'm not sure that most of the "list of battles" pages really need to exist at all, seems like they'd be better served as a category, unless they are going to provide significant information on said battles that would make them valuable. you raise a good point, though. Evansknight (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- This is potentially a legitimate list, but wherever possible the item should provide a link to a main article. All battle boxes should be removed to the specific articles to which they refer. The article might be better largely being converted to a table. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I second this, I think the most effective "list of battles" pages seem to follow this format, of a table with essential information rather than a prose list Evansknight (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DJ Charlie B[edit]

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

Not meeting MUSIC or GNG. Sources are all streaming sites or PR relating to a deal with a fried chicken restaurant. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. My initial impression matched yours (since there are multiple DJ Charlie Bs) but then I found (some of these are the article currently but I'm not sure why they don't help contribute to keep?): DJ Charlie B assembles Toronto's finest on new album Across The Board and NorthSideBenji & DJ Charlie B Team Up On "30,000 Ft."; on Complex: DJ Charlie B Drops Debut Album ‘Across The Board’ f/ Pressa, NorthSideBenji, Smiley, and More, NorthSideBenji and DJ Charlie B Go Up “30,000 ft” for New Video, and DJ Charlie B Is a Bad Boss in New “Water Whip” Video f/ OVO Affiliates 2Kz and YTN Paco. Which aren't the most rock-solid sources but better than streaming sites or PR deals with fried chicken. Further, the claim that the single "30,000 ft" was certified gold in Canada seems true: [7], which would meet WP:SINGER #3. Skynxnex (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Per WP:NMG, the subject passes 4 - He has a record certified gold and above (Music Canada), passes 8 - the subject has been nominated for a major music award (Juno). I have created the article as a stub for now (timing issues) but https://www.complex.com/music/dj-charlie-b-debut-album-across-the-board is substantial enough, however, there is more that can be added to the article per WP:HEY. GR86 (📱) 21:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The subject specific guideline for this is Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles and states 3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. Dream Focus 15:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CU note I have blocked the article's author, who has commented above but without a bolded vote, as the sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This could be a G5, but @Dream Focus and CT55555: have recently contributed albeit after it was brought here. Willing to give this another spin if folks think it's salvageable. If another admin feels that this should go, feel free.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep As per the reasoning of Skynxnex. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Occupational exposure to Lyme disease[edit]

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

Offshoot of Lyme disease that adds nothing substantial and has no reason to be a standalone article. Mooonswimmer 01:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, as I see, references at the article, or at the article for Lyme disease, are about Lyme disease, not about occupation exposure. GNC requires sources addressing the topic directly. Cinadon36 10:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Seems redundant, and these offshoot articles tend to get neglected. ScienceFlyer (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transindo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. There is one source in the article on this defunct private jet operator at the moment, a database entry, and the source thus fails to contribute towards WP:SIRS. I've conducted a broader online search about this company and I am unable to find sources that contribute towards passing WP:SIRS. As such, I propose that this article be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8 for failing to meet the relevant notability guideline of NCORP. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Indonesia. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH, nothing at all in any kind of sources in Google search except few listings. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't delete this, like Citra Air, I will try my best to update this. Thank you CARLITOAHUISA (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Per analysis above. gidonb (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Fails to satisfy WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, so deletion is appropriate here. If the article subject had demonstrable WP:NOTABILITY in the form of sufficient WP:SIGCOV by WP:RS, there would be a stronger case for keeping. However, as I have pointed out in detail, WP:GNG and WP:NCORP aren’t met here. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Freestyle skiing at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Women's moguls. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Claudia Gueli[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOLY. Oppose redirect to Freestyle_skiing_at_the_2018_Winter_Olympics as this article only mentions medallists. Also nominating for same reason:

Madii Himbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

LibStar (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect for both I know you're opposing it, but people are probably gonna search that name, and it would probably be most helpful for people who do search the name to be redirected to the only reason they're even remotely notable in the first place. Plus, redirects are a lot easier to "refund" than going through the normal refund/undeletion process if for some reason Gueli or Hamburg suddenly become much more notable for whatever reason. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect both, unfortunately. I looked for sources for both and was only able to find one piece of SIGCOV for either: [8] (on Himbury). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - redirecting to Freestyle skiing at the 2018 Winter Olympics would be completely unsuitable as she is not mentioned there. I have no opinion on the notability, but at the very least redirect to Australia at the 2018 Winter Olympics where she is mentioned. A7V2 (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect both. Ignore the red herring in the nomination and redirect to the actual sport they participated in, Freestyle skiing at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Women's moguls, where they are mentioned. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect both as others are arguing. It would be the best option at the present time.Historyday01 (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nicole Parks[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOLY. Oppose redirect to Freestyle_skiing_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics as only medallists are named in this article. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There seems to be some coverage, for example [9] [10] [11] and [12]. I don't know if its enough. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I have had a look at coverage, and I think there is enough coverage in reliable sources to bring the article to a standard that would make it worth keeping.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have expanded the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY thanks to Toddy1-- good work. Now meets GNG etc Cabrils (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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