< November 22	November 24 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Archery at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Men's individual. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phoutlamphay Thiamphasone[edit]

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

He competed at the 2004 Summer Olympics but did not win a medal. A WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. An alternative to deletion could be Archery at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Men's individual as he didn't compete in more than one event. Suonii180 (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Laos. Suonii180 (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Archery at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Men's individual per nom. Fermiboson (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per nom (ref WP:NOLYMPIC). Transliterating his name to Lao to search for that is beyond me. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per above. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect WP:ATD-R WP:CHEAP Lightburst (talk) 19:23, 30 November 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. ✗plicit 23:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skillit (platform)[edit]

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

Coverage is routine about funding. WP:CORP does not seem to be met. SmartSE (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Websites, and New York. SmartSE (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. The article is about the software/platform, not about the company itself, so applying WP:NCORP is a stretch. [1], [2],[3], [4], [5] all articles include anaylsis and description of the Skillit platform (and are reliable sources per WP:RS, that's why on Wikipedia article, we have two lines about funding and a separate section about the platform. The article is very much expandable based on the provided references and is an encyclopedic topic in a niche industry like contruction, where software use is minimal. SHilhorst (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://www.inflection-point.us/ is a random blog - not a reliable source
Can't access but looks like routine coverage of funding
Can't access but looks like routine coverage of funding
Again a routine funding announcement
Again, can't access but from the headline clearly about funding. SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, I disagree with the author of the article who voted keep - this subject does not meet the general notability guideline or the subject specific notability guideline set out in WP:PRODUCT. Rather, I agree with the source assessment conducted by the nominator, these sources are sheerly routine and not significant coverage at all. Routine articles about funding are not sufficient for notability. Article should be deleted. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: If this were to be a considered as a product-focused article, then the funding information should be eliminated from consideration as both irrelevant and non-independent (noting that these don't contribute to NCORP notability anyway, largely arise from press releases, and SAAS startups are basically their product). Coverage in listicles and similar minor comparisons of similar products/services doesn't demonstrate individual notability, and I can't see suitable SIGCOV of the platform on a quick BEFORE. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No indication of notability beyond routine coverage --VViking_TalkEdits 14:28, 30 November 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. ✗plicit 06:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haritha Gogineni[edit]

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

Neither recognized as the most trusted astrologer (it's the real Indian award), nor as a businessperson BoraVoro (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Astrology, and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Unsure of the quality of the sources found [6] is basically a paragraph with lots of photos, typical of other sources. This is listed [7] in Gsearch, but the website only returns html code, looks like a coding error. How do we feel about the other sources out there, they are flowery, but do mention her role as producer in several items? Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete based on what I've seen, I don't think this person is covered in RS that we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, quick search shows some sources that would be better suited for the subject matter based in india. This one, this, and this. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are all either paid promotion, or indistinguishable enough from it that they might as well be; see WP:NEWSORGINDIA. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per my response immediately above. PR-type sources can't be used to establish notability. "Most trusted astrologer" award? Really? Other than a couple claims of receipt of this award over the last couple years, I can't even verify that this is a real thing. Who awards it? What are the selection criteria? ~~If an astrologer casts a horoscope in the forest, but there's no one around to read it, is it still bunk?~~ 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:15, 21 November 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!} 23:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Lots of hits, all with ridiculous titles that cast massive doubt on reliability. No evidence of any other attention given by any third party. Fermiboson (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - None of the sources seem reliable enough to establish notability. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – If Wikipedia started listing every such fantasist, there'd be no end to it. MisterWizzy (talk) 08:39, 27 November 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!} 22:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thorden Hessel Christophersen[edit]

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

This person simply does not exist. A total WP:HOAX. Thanks to @Oceanh for bringing it to light.

The first reference is bogus. NBL1 is shorthand for Norsk biografisk leksikon, 1st edition, where volume 3 came out in 1926, long before the subject would have accomplished anything to warrant encyclopedic inclusion. Above all, the purported author Dahl was not born yet.
It then follows that the person does not have an entry in the aforementioned volume 3, which under "Christophersen" only contains the three brothers Christian Eilert Rasch Christophersen, Peter Christophersen and Wilhelm Christopher Christophersen.
The subject does not have an entry in the second edition either. Furthermore, the entry for his brother would have informed of any family member who also had entries, because this is the style of this biographical dictionary.
The second reference exists, but doesn't support what it claims.
The third reference is ludicrous; why would a book about theatre history from 1889 be a reference to support facts that purportedly happened in the 1940s or 1950s?
The subject is not a family member of the purported family in the 1910 census or 1920 census
There are no search hits in Norway's National Library for any conceiveable spelling of the subject's name.
The claim that Den nasjonale regjering had informants working directly for them is baseless. Informants worked through Sicherheitsdienst/Gestapo, Abwehr or Statspolitiet.

Worst of all, the creator has edited lots of other articles, vandalizing some, at least including the subject's alleged brother. Most of the ensuing discussion should adress the actions of this user. Geschichte (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Per nom. I also couldn't find anything online about this supposed figure. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I encountered the story of Halfdan Olaus Christophersen early in my career, it's become a favorite but I've always felt the section of his time in the Norwegian resistance movement could use some more content. I have family in Tallin and there is a rich Norwegian immigrant community here, including the Christophersen (Cristofersen) family. The references would all be perfectly suitable if Hessel Christophersen happened to be found. Perhaps if I had some help finding references, we could keep the article? GourmetBean (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the article creator, who of course does not try to refute a single of the findings stated above. I am at a loss for words regarding GourmetBean's behavior. Geschichte (talk) 09:23, 22 November 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!} 23:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Based on the explanation in the first comment there, this seems to be a pile of bunk; I can't find mentions of this person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Nothing useful in Gbooks, but it hits to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (among only 5 listings), Scholar and Jstor are bare... appears to be a made up story. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. No WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 14:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete WP:V is policy. The article's creator GourmetBean only has 59 edits so we can cut them slack and outline policy. Please keep on contributing but when starting an article make sure there is plenty of WP:RS - use Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to determine what RS is. I added a welcome template to their website since I cannot see that they ever had one. Lightburst (talk) 19:33, 30 November 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. ✗plicit 06:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weekly Economic Times[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and organization-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Organizations, Business, Companies, and Bangladesh. UtherSRG (talk) 19:29, 16 November 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!} 23:00, 23 November 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. ✗plicit 06:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sven-Olof Walldoff[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and music maker-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Sweden. UtherSRG (talk) 19:35, 16 November 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!} 22:56, 23 November 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 Children's Theatre Company. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plays for New Audiences[edit]

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

This is a stub. Content should be merged into Children's Theatre Company and Theatre for Young Audiences The Savage Norwegian 21:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. The Savage Norwegian 21:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Illinois, Minnesota, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I realize now that I could merge this content over to Children's Theatre Company myself and make this page a redirect. Apologies for my haste in nominating for deletion. The Savage Norwegian 21:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that this content should be a section within the CTC article. References elsewhere can be linked to that section. Kablammo (talk) 11:59, 17 November 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!} 22:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge (the cited material) to Children's Theatre Company. Despite a reasonable number of search results, I found no evidence that the subject is independently notable. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:16, 30 November 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 North Carolina Court of Appeals#Former judges as a viable ATD since no further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 03:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christopher Brook[edit]

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

the subject fails GNG, notability under NPOL is questionable but I could not find any RS with SIGCOV of the subject. The page was mainly a copy-paste job from official press releases and still reads like a promo piece. The only sources are a campaign website, a press release and ballotopedia. hroest 19:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. hroest 19:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or redirect to North Carolina Court of Appeals#Former judges Subject should meet WP:NPOL for holding a statewide office that is normally elected. I understand that here Brook was appointed and not elected, but the position is a statewide elected position and I think the NPOL presumption applies to appointees if they're appointed to a normally elected office. However, if there is not enough sourcing to write a good WP:BLP due to the short tenure in the position then we should redirect it to the office he held. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:01, 11 November 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!} 22:34, 16 November 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!} 22:53, 23 November 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 Star Wars: Jedi Knight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kyle Katarn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kyle Katarn

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

Fails SIGCOV and Notability, probably the sources mostly based on rankings/listicles only I think. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 21:56, 23 November 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. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep While the sourcing in this article IS indeed terrible, a cursory glance at Google News shows a large amount of discussion, albeit it can be hard to see the trees amongst the Valnet forest.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Merge A closer examination of the google sources shows that there's not actually that much said about him as a character, at least enough to really work for SIGCOV. If they utilize him in the films or current canon that may change, but for now it doesn't feel like it's there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Star Wars: Jedi Knight. I am unconvinced that he is standalone notable - SIGCOV could not be found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect or merge to Star Wars: Jedi Knight. Majority of article is in-universe content and reception is pretty threadbare. Beating a 40-year-old game character in a fan poll is hardly worth writing home about. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:34, 28 November 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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Justina Baltrūnaitė[edit]

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

The subject, a Lithuanian women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Lithuania. JTtheOG (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:SIGCOV here [8]. Respublik (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Doesn't Meet neither WP:GNG nor WP:BIO. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete does not satisfy WP:BIO.---Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:24, 30 November 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 List of Moldova women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mihaela Guma[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers. The subject has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers---Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:25, 30 November 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!} 22:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lana Osiņina[edit]

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

The subject, a Latvian women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions like this. JTtheOG (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Latvia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:04, 24 November 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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rabija Dervishi[edit]

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

The subject, a Macedonian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and North Macedonia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete -- per above.-Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:33, 30 November 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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brigita Partikaitė[edit]

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

The subject, a Lithuanian women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Lithuania. JTtheOG (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:34, 30 November 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 which does not preclude a redirect if sourcing is found to be insufficient Star Mississippi 03:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saraswat Vidyalaya[edit]

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

No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:44, 1 November 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 November 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 00:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Goa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment, in the past, schools in India have had a fair amount of coverage discovered in ProQuest, which is down for TWL right now, so we might want to take this one slowly. —siro χ o 04:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Mapusa#Education if insufficient coverage to establish notability. The college and high school exists. Rupples (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source. Found this [9]. Snippet view. Can't track the whole book to see if additional content but have added to article. Rupples (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. There is indeed a lot of coverage on ProQuest. Eg. A protest: [10]. Sports [11][12] etc. Other local coverage: [13][14]. There's a lot more there to sort through as well. —siro χ o 04:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Also moving towards a keep, but the article needs a bit more usable sourcing. As of now, it's not quite there. Rupples (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A second opinion on these newly located sources would be helpful as well as an assessment if they provide adequate SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third relist in hopes of more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Mapusa#Education. Routine news any school would receive does not establish notability. Fails GNG and NORG, nothing found from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 November 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 Pikmin#Protagonists. ^Complex/_Rational 22:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Captain Olimar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails SIGCOV and Notability, relying on RefBombing to try and give the semblance of some bulk to the article. There's little discussion about him as an actual character, and even the sources acknowledge he's essentially a blank canvas. It has the hallmarks of the same problems facing many other Smash Bros. character articles that were previously redirected, just with less overall salvageable information. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect - to Pikmin#Protagonists. Plausible search term. The "reception" in the article is laughably weak and full of bloat and insignificant commentary (I removed a passing mention about how a source called him the smallest Smash Bros character, for example.) Open to reconsidering if better sourcing is found, but it's not there based on what I've seen so far. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect Per nom and Sergecross, this character isn't standalone notable based on my own searches. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect - Per nom and Sergecross. This article is very weak and, if the underdeveloped reception has anything to go by, hasn't developed much notability or discussion outside of "he's in Smash". --ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD. I believe that sources might exist, but I couldn't find them. Redirect would WP:PRESERVE the edit history and allow someone to split this out if sources are found. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:39, 29 November 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 List of Atlus games , which has a consensus slight edge. Target can be adjusted as a matter of editorial judgement and doesn't require a relist Star Mississippi 03:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naname De Magic![edit]

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

There does not appear to have any sources about it, even after over a decade being tagged as having no citations. For a Japanese exclusive game it also having no Japanese article seems very indicative there is no notability to the game. GamerPro64 18:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. GamerPro64 18:34, 23 Novemberj 2023 (UTC)
Delete I only see Wikipedia mirrors and no reliable independent sources in English. Prepared to reconsider if any good Japanese sources are found. Mccapra (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment It appears that Naname De Magic! (ななめでまじっく！) was covered twice in Gamest magazine (by different writers, on only 1 page in both issues) according to this website: http://www.netlaputa.ne.jp/~dummy/gamest/game/h_n.html, although I have no idea if these issues have scans online, and thus how significant the coverage is. toweli (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of the issues (no. 119) is available on the Internet Archive: https://ia902505.us.archive.org/10/items/gamest0119/gamest0119.pdf (page 182 in the magazine, page 194 in the .pdf). toweli (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This really would require someone who can read Japanese text to figure out what they're even saying. GamerPro64 05:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can just point a cell phone with Google Translate in camera mode at your computer monitor, and you can get a rough GTranslate version of the text. It's not super-deep (i.e. it's not "games journalism" like Wikipedia prefers it written in a sober voice about strengths and weakness, but rather a for-kids style explanation of the plot and game mechanics. SnowFire (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to List of Atlus games. This game clearly exists and was from a major publisher per links above, but it is probably best covered as a simple list entry, perhaps with a paragraph. (Maybe a spin-off article like "List of minor Atlus games" or something? Title is not great, but idea being a place to merge games worth a section of coverage but not a full article.) SnowFire (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect - F-Zero#Plot. List of Atlus games as an alternative. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:52, 1 December 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 F-Zero#Plot which can be re-visited, target wise, as a matter of editorial judgement should a character list come into existence Star Mississippi 03:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Captain Falcon[edit]

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

Fails SIGCOV and notability, relying on mostly small quick statements to try and give it any semblance of a body via WP:REFBOMB. We have a situation here where the sources *themselves* point out there's nothing to say about the character outside of the old meme regarding his voice lines, and even then trying to turn up discussion regarding them has been fruitless.

In the end, it's the same problem as many other Smash Bros. focused character articles. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep While I see the nom's point about a lot of these references being short, references 10 and 35 seem to be independent, non-trivial RS coverage of the character. Jclemens (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10 is a "How to" guide for the character though, and one done for every character in the series on the site (complete with a table of contents in there).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to F-Zero#Plot - while I strongly disagree with the logic behind boldly redirecting Captain Falcon of all people, the sources do not demonstrate SIGCOV exists in more than a select article. I am here wondering why there isn't a character list for the series yet, though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I agree with the lack of SIGCOV. Media hardly comments about the character outside of Smash Bros. Context is limited to brief mentions. This leads to speculative information being added as seen in the first sentence of "Creation and characteristics". Half of that is not sourced. For interested parties, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of F-Zero characters as well. There appears to be meaningful information for the SNES F-Zero game so I've added the ref idea there. « Ryūkotsusei » 21:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a poorly argued AfD, as the topic of "List of F-Zero characters" is "F-Zero" and arguing as if it is "F-Zero characters" will yield inappropriate results like this. Furthermore, no ATDs were implemented, which is almost always wrong for an article of NN (or assessed as NN) fictional content. Jclemens (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, I feel like I wasn't thorough enough back in 2020 as Hardcore Gaming 101 definitely has some things to say about the characters and other sources likely do as well. I probably wouldn't have !voted for its deletion now, knowing what I do. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Captain Falcon seems to be featured on page 74 of Things I Learned from Mario's Butt and some information on how he's uncommon among elite Melee players but it's borderline for me; I'm having trouble finding more sourcing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's of course stuff from Game Rant, Screen Rant, CBR, etc., but WP:VG/S seems to downplay them as marginally reliable or unreliable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, the consensus is that most of the Valnet sites are situational sources. The CBR article, in particular, would be unusable, since it was just published in July 2023. I'm not sure on the Game Rant and Screen Rant sources. While these were published prior to 2023, a number of editors are wary on using anything Valnet to demonstrate notability, a stance I don't particularly agree with.

The Things I Learned from Mario's Butt source looks like it could be a good one. Just too bad Google doesn't allow us to access the whole page. MoonJet (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm able to get it by just clicking on the "preview" button. For those who can't, it's three paragraphs that are dedicated mostly to the physique of the character (and it describes the physical motion of what a "falcon punch" is). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking frankly I would urge some caution on citing Laura Kate Dale for *anything* given their track record. As for the sources overall, most are just dishing out factoids about the character than discussing him. Screen Rant's is about his gameplay, and is in regards to that particular game. Gameplay commentary can be a bit rough to cite because you need to be able to show there was some impact from it to really make it stick, while actually actually discussing the character via other sources and showing why they matter. As I said elsewhere I have no problem with Valnet for sourcing, but these are just not cutting the mustard.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point of Valnet's sites are to create low effort, cheap content to get clicks. These sources are no exception, with some of the "top 10 facts" being things that aren't even real facts, like "he's shrouded in mystery". I'm sure I could come up with more interesting facts if I spent more than 10 minutes researching Falcon, but they get paid $5 per article so they have no reason to. This is to be strictly contrasted with more well researched articles and is why using them for purely informational purposes is the only real path forward with them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sites do produce decent editorial pieces every now and then. I think in general though folks need to consider *what* they can pull from a source that's meaningful vs a source existing. The whole "Facts You Didn't Know!" format certainly doesn't offer much and the above are just that. We've seen that with sources like that "1000 Greatest Video Game Characters" book though too, where most of the entries were just "here's this character's backstory".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect Fails SIGCOV based on the current sources. The commentary is trivial and mostly about Smash Bros. and that does not demonstrate notability. This article needs a couple of good sources that discuss the character in detail, not just in passing. Fieryninja (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect Sadly, most of the sources were from Smash, nothing else. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per Zxcvbnm. Sadly there aren't more than trivial mentions here. A character list would be a good idea, but the main game article will suffice for now. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:48, 1 December 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. No clear indications that sourcing or notability requirements are met; the additional sources presented in the keep !votes are similar to those already present. ^Complex/_Rational 22:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adekunle Olayinka[edit]

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

Aside from UPE concerns, the articles seems to be filled with articles that are paid for. Olayinka holds the post of a special adviser to the Governor of Lagos State; which does not pass the bar for WP:NPOL. As an aspirant, sadly, Olayinka could not make it to the House of Representatives; again, fails NPOL. Neither does Olayinka meet the general notability guidelines independently. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete does not pass NPOL and the sources cited are recycled press releases. Mccapra (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The person lacks coverage from credible sources. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Generally pass GNG 102.88.36.78 (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:NPOL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Google search has multiple reliable sources from secondary independent sources.[15], [16] and [17] are enough to establish notability. 102.89.34.12 (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per all mentioned reasons above.- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:35, 30 November 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 as sourcing is found to be insufficient. However, if someone wants this as a draft to rename and scope, just ping me. Star Mississippi 03:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cure Alzheimer's Fund[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable organization. I'm not seeing coverage that isn't PR-Newswire posts or first party. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Delete: I did find this article: [18], but it's mostly an interview, and this: [19], which is likely an editorialized press release. All other sources I found were either clearly PR, routine database or tax listings, or not independent of the foundation. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: It is a notable charity in the fight against Alzheimer. La coince (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- La coince, notability is demonstrated through coverage in reliable sources, which you have not demonstrated exist. I'm also super curious how you found this, considering that you haven't edited this project in half a year before reaching this nomination. By any chance, are you also user:CureAlzUser, since you added back the same content that I've removed as being out of scope and overly promotional? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  @The Squirrel Conspiracy I am not user:CureAlzUser, but feel free to have this checked. Let me also add that common courtesy would have required you to mention contributors of this page about the deletion process. La coince (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete it fails to adhere to Wikipedia's core content policies. Firstly, the article appears to be written in a promotional tone, highlighting the organization's achievements and funding efficiency without a balanced representation of independent, critical analysis, which goes against the Neutral Point of View policy. Secondly, the article lacks citations from reliable, third-party sources. Lastly, the notability of the organization is not well established through significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment There's a decent amount of coverage as they seem to be involved in some significant research, but not much of it is in-depth. A lot of it has to do with the Alzheimer’s Genome Project, which they provide funding for (this might be a notable project that would warrant a Wikipedia article).

The nonprofit is described as "aimed at accelerating research to bring about a cure for the disease" and The New York Times notes that they are "one of several foundations whose approach departs from the standard model employed by the National Institutes of Health and major medical foundations. These groups are intensely goal-directed and collaborative; they see the creation of new cures as a process that needs to be managed; and they bring a sense of urgency to the task". Mooonswimmer 14:04, 7 November 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!} 22:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as there is some minor interest via Google Trends. --Maxim Masiutin (talk)

I don't see anything about Google Trends in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to Alzheimer's Genome Project, and trim down to focus on the project. While the fund likely fails WP:NCORP, the research project seems to meet academic notability criteria. Owen× ☎ 00:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of the late proposal to rename and re-scope the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: The fund doesn't seem to be independently notable. Cortador (talk) 20:24, 23 November 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 as it appears sourcing questions have been addressed Star Mississippi 03:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jim Haynie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy G4 declined as one of the refs is newer than those in the original article - that's one of precisely two refs and is an obit in the South Whidbey Record - so an obituary in a newspaper that "serves the south end of Whidbey Island, beginning with the Island gateway of Clinton, where Washington State ferries dock after crossing Puget Sound from the mainland and Seattle" is the only additional claim of notability to that which was deemed insufficient in 2017. Still fails WP:GNG; WP:NACTOR with minor roles throughout. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Oklahoma. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Veteran actor with bit parts and no critical discussion of any of it. Long way from ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: The article passes WP:NACTOR. He’s had significant roles in the films From Hollywood to Deadwood, Jack's Back, Staying Together (film), The Bridges of Madison County (film) and Take Five (TV series). The Film Creator (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: I removed the speedy tag because the newer ref indicated that the article could not be the same article as the one deleted. Unfortunately, I gave up my admin bit while on 10-year hiatus, so I cannot see the deleted version to compare to this article. Alexandermcnabb, can you see the old version?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, @A. B., I was going to ask you the same question - how can you see the first version! I've gone on the reasons from the original AfD and no activity on the part of the subject since that AfD took place - and then, encompassing your (perfectly valid) comment on the additional source changing the article, I took a look at that source and it doesn't give any more indication of a WP:GNG pass than existed back in 2017. Hence AfD... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I agree with The Film Creator above. He passes WP:NACTOR for his various significant roles in notable films/series. The interview in the LAT and the obituary in the Whidbey News-Times (the same that was published in South Whidbey Record) are not only good indications but can help improve the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO, no sources showing this meets NACTOR. Sources in article are an interview and database record, BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keep votes provide no sources, just ILIKEIT reasons. // Timothy :: talk 05:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, no, this is not true. My !vote is partially based on the 2 sources in the page (both being SIGCOV RELIABLE INDEPENDENT coverage one an interview, true, but in the LAT, and the other perfectly secondary, mind you) and on his roles, and The Fim Creator’s one is based on the significance of his roles too, referring to a guideline. This has nothing to do with ’I like it’. So please, don’t comment upon other’s people !votes if it’s not in a collaborative spirit. You may disagree with others’ opinions but don’t dismiss their contributions to the discussion by presenting them erroneously. Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: I wrote the German Wikipedia article about Haynie, which is more substantial, and have researched a bit about his career. He also has articles in three other languages, by the way. From my viewpoint many actors with lesser careers have English-language Wikipedia articles here. Haynie had quite decent supporting roles in well-known films like I Come in Peace, Sleepwalkers and The Bridges of Madison County (as Meryl Streep's film husband); also a major role in Staying Together. Not to mention a long list of television roles. More than 25 views on average show a public interest. The main reason why he did not get so many obituarys at the time of his death is that obviously this information wasn't given to the press for a long time. It could definitely have merited a Hollywood Reporter or Variety obituary. However, the Academy also listed him in their longer "In Memoriam list" for 2021. --Clibenfoart (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Source eval: from de.wp mentioned above.

Comments	Source
Mentions in footnotes, nothing close to WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	1. Stephen J. Bottoms: The Theatre of Sam Shepard: States of Crisis. Cambridge University Press, 1998, ISBN 978-0-521-58791-4 (google.de [abgerufen am 6. Juni 2020]).
IMDB entry	2. ↑ Jim Haynie (IMDb). Abgerufen am 6. Juni 2020.
Obit with the normal problems associated with obits.	3. ↑ Jim Haynie: Feb. 6, 1940 - April 3, 2021. 2. Juli 2021, abgerufen am 27. Juli 2021 (amerikanisches Englisch).
Facebook	4. ↑ Post von seiner Ehefrau Maggie Causey auf Facebook. Abgerufen am 15. Juni 2021 (englisch).
Title indicates this is an obit, but not able to find anything on subject from the article or above link is blank. Editor above states "also listed him" and a mention in a list also fails WP:SIGCOV.	5. ↑ Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences: In Memoriam. Abgerufen am 15. Juni 2021 (englisch).

All fail WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

The comment above The main reason why he did not get so many obituarys at the time of his death is that obviously this information wasn't given to the press for a long time. shows the problem with obits regarding WP:NPOV, WP:IS. // Timothy :: talk 08:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films and TV shows, more than enough to meet WP:NACTOR. Owen× ☎ 00:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I found some coverage for this actor on Newspapars.com and it's significant enough to get over the GNG bar in my view. The first three are solely about him and the other two I think display that some of his work was notable as well (received wide critical acclaim for True West, winning an Bay Area Theatre Critics Circle Award for his theater work. 1a,1b, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, 5. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 22:41, 25 November 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Underdark (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Underdark (band) (2nd nomination)

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

Why the page should be deleted: 1. No citations, exclusively primary sources, aside from a single metal.de review (https://www.metal.de/reviews/underdark-in-the-name-of-chaos-14520/) I couldn't find anything abt this band. 2. There is a more notable band called Underdark from the UK which would better suit this page, albeit I can't just replace the content on the page y'know. So unless this gets the deletion go-ahead I can't write about the band. That is all. Chchcheckit (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I agree with Chchcheckit here, the UK Band actually has a significant number of independent sources and is probably notable for an anti fascist stance as well. Perhaps the Polish sources have been drowned out by more recent coverage. I am also not a Polish metal fan, so if one could be found perhaps that would help here.Spiralwidget (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think per looking at the previous discussion on this page from 2012 (which reached no consensus), one editor did suggest two sources from nowiny24 (which has a page on the polish wikipedia, albeit it is not found/logged on English Wikipedia, which is a problem regarding notable sources). Also: this band is not on polish wiki either (per prev. discussion as well). Chchcheckit (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: A brief search indicates that it indeed the UK band that is notable, not the Polish one, and with the band apparently not having released anything in 15 years, that is unlikely to change. Cortador (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete; only substantial sources I could find relate to the UK band. Darling (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this meets WP:GNG. No pl wiki interwiki is a red flag too. I'll ping a Polish Wikipedian interested in music, User:Yurek88. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per above reasons--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:39, 30 November 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!} 22:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maharishi Vastu Architecture[edit]

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

This overly bloated article on an obscure set of design principles followed by the Maharishi cult is bizarre to say the least, but it is more problematically being propped up by sources which are published in low-quality journals without outside notice we would normally require for tests of fringe notability. The one-off comments in mainstream sources that are quotemined in the article seem to be present for one purpose only: to make it seem like this is an encyclopedic topic when really it's just thinly veiled propaganda. We need to start weeding this WP:Walled garden, and I think starting with this article makes sense. jps (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Religion, and Hinduism. jps (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete -- This appears to be a very sophisticated version of WP:NOTADVERT for a specific organisation. All of the nomination's points are also valid (GNG, primary sources, fringe, etc.). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:12, 30 November 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 kept per comments. Recipients of Padma Shri are notable. The article has been vandalized. ‎ Materialscientist (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pravakar Maharana[edit]

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

Fails WP:NARTIST an autobiography whose only claim to notability is a failed verification to an award. Theroadislong (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and India. Theroadislong (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom, I'd say the claim is verifiably false [20] -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The claim is verificable. [21][22] 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 18:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Clearly passes ANYBIO. Recipients of Padma Shri are notable and always kept in AfD. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 18:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except the source doesn't support the award being given? and the photographs of the person do not match? Theroadislong (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the edit history of the page. An unknown IP added that photo. I think that Pravakar Maharana really got that award and someone vandalised that page by inserting his own photo. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 18:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the photo is of Laxmi Narayan Maharana (see google search results). 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 18:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Happy to withdraw the nomination, as it seems like the article had been hijacked when I tagged it for AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 18:18, 23 November 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 2023 Balochistan Security Checkpoint Attack[edit]

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

Very unclear topic or notability. Draftifying to give the creator a chance to correct this had no result. Basically, we have an infobox and background section about a different event, we have one source which when one actually checks it out doesn't even mention the event, and another source not about this attack at all. So this is an unsourced and due to the lack of concrete info for me unverifiable article. If it can be verified, shown to be notable, and cleaned, fine (that's why I draftified it), but if not it needs to be deleted. Fram (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. Fram (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or draftify per nominator; the sources cited do not specifically mention any security checkpoint attack, and I couldn't find anything else that specific (other than the broader 2023 attacks), so fails WP:V. I would reconsider if other sources, perhaps in other languages, could be provided. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As said per the respected user i have added More sources to make the article reliable Rahim231 (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete -- This is a perfectly valid news event, but not an encyclopaedic subject. The sources are valid, but they simply report that it happened which does not clear the threshold for WP:EVENTCRIT. There is no secondary analysis of the event, and draftify won't change that. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete -- per above.Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:53, 30 November 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. ✗plicit 02:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Square Deal (game)[edit]

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

I searched and it does not seem to be notable (by the way there is a card game which I assume is not related as this article mentions tiles) Chidgk1 (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at the page on BGG it seems unlikely this topic meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: It exists and has a few videos on youtube and I can buy it on Amazon, but that's not what we need for notability here. Unsourced article and I find nothing we can use in RS Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is unsourced, and there is no GNG-contributing references I can find. Hence, it clearly should be deleted. VickKiang (talk) 02:12, 27 November 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. ✗plicit 23:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whyte Chemicals[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails to general and company-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Subsidiary of a company that doesn't even have a wiki page and turns up nothing in a search. Fails notability as per nom. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Little found on this company other than it being bought out of administration. Rupples (talk) 18:10, 28 November 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 Richard Menta. as a viable ATD as at the moment Menta is not up foe deletion. Star Mississippi 03:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MP3 Newswire[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It would appear to me that this website - it is online when I checked as part of WP:BEFORE is still active - fails any number of notability tests, including but not limited to WP:WEBPAGE, and WP:NCORP for relation to its parent companies or subsidiaries, such as they may be.

I note that

the deletion dicussion was closed 11 Aug 2005.
the article was recreated on 28 September 2005
Given its almost 20 years existence in WP:ARTICLESPACE, it would appear to me reasonable to review the 2005 deletion.
a number of articles link here
it would appear to me that it may quite possibly be a plausible Redirect to either an article of sections in an article - and if so which ones?

As always, please do prove me wrong about this!

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Music, and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Results are all Newswires talking about mp3, nothing much for the site. This is all I got [23]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
or redirect to Richard Menta, but his article is about as sparse... Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I had considered that and gave up, so I PRODded Menta, only to facepalm when Explicit the admin pointed out that I'd missed the PROD in the deletion logs. I might take his advice to take that to AfD, too. Until then, I decided it was a long shot and decided to try to G4 this. Instead of a side of WP:TROUT with a decline, reviewing admin Shirt58 decided to take time from their busy admin duties to come to AfD themself. A pleasant surprise! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment These were cited in the last deletion discussion, but they're trivial [24], [25]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Appears to be blogger Richard Menta. IgelRM (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikiquote Richard Menta about MP3 Newswire IgelRM (talk) 00:14, 25 November 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. ✗plicit 14:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shri Shiv Chhatrapati College[edit]

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

Zero third party coverage. Sohom (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:22, 23 November 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. ✗plicit 11:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deepshikha Secondary School[edit]

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

yvanyblog^(talk) 09:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. yvanyblog^(talk) 09:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - this is a mess. I can't find proof that this school, in this location exists. There is another school, Deepshikha Secondary Boarding School, in Ghorahi, which is not Bandipur, as this school purportedly is. No citations, no decent categories. Can it. Kazamzam (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete subject does not seem to be notable. Not much news coverage. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:55, 30 November 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. ✗plicit 14:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tse Tin Yau[edit]

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

stub on an unnotable sportsperson. fails general notability guideline. sourced to databases (note: second source is completely dead). preliminary search for sources turns up nothing but unreliable sources and whatever this is. ltb d l (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hong Kong. ltb d l (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. The Hong Kong Footballers book found is just made up of Wikipedia content, so it is not a RS, either. -2pou (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per the insufficient coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I found these sources:
1. Tsang, Ngan-ping 鄧永賢; Dang, Wing-jin 鄧永賢 (2011-12-07). "三代足球人　心繫一個夢" [Three generations of football players share a dream]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  The article notes: "謝天佑與曾文輝同是20歲，同是從小便希望可以成為職業足球員，還憧憬如外國球星般賺取豐厚報酬；可是入行後便發覺，現實與理想有很大距離，但兩人仍咬緊牙關，希望可在球圈踢出成績。... 5歲接觸足球，中一已夢想做職業球員的謝天佑，在流浪經過兩年青年軍時代後，獲提升到甲組，開始全職踢波，月薪4,000元；就算後來加到5,000元，間中有點獎金，只是從屯門乘車到市區練波已月花過千。 ... 從流浪轉會到港菁的謝天佑（左），今季操練較以往積極。"
  From Google Translate: "Tse Tin Yau and Tsang Man Fai are both 20 years old. They both dreamed of becoming professional footballers since they were young, and they also dreamed of earning huge rewards like foreign stars. However, after entering the industry, they discovered that reality and ideals are very different. Although the distance was huge, the two still gritted their teeth and hoped to achieve results in the football circle. ... Tse Tin Yau, who started playing football at the age of 5 and had already dreamed of becoming a professional player in the first grade of secondary school, won the title of Wan after two years of wandering in the youth army. He was promoted to Group A and started playing wave full-time, with a monthly salary of NT$4,000. Even if it was later increased to NT$5,000, with occasional bonuses, just taking the bus from Tuen Mun to the city to practice wave already cost more than 1,000 yuan a month. ... Transferred from Wandering Tse Tin Yau (left), who arrived in Hong Kong, is training more actively this season than before.
2. Tsoi, Wai-hang 蔡偉恆, ed. (2010-01-10). "流浪大中球員打鬥" [Wandering big and medium players fighting] (PDF). Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). p. B10. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  The article notes: "昨晚在九龍灣公園上演的 1 場甲組聯賽又演「全武行」，比賽末段流浪右閘謝天佑襲擊大中球員盧俊傑後又與燕鳴昊「肉搏」，結果雙雙被逐。... 由於謝天佑言語上辱及盧俊傑的母親，盧母賽後大聲指罵流浪總監李輝立之餘又在 "
  From Google Translate: "Last night, a League A match played at Kowloon Bay Park was another "all-out show". At the end of the game, the wandering right-backer Tse Tin Yau attacked the big player Lu Junjie and then had a "hand-to-hand" fight with Yan Minghao. [more discussion about Tse's involvement in the fight] ... Because Tse Tin Yau verbally insulted Lu Junjie's mother, Lu's mother loudly criticized the wandering director Li Huili after the game."
3. "中国香港出征六城会足球预赛 U17港脚会战武汉" [Hong Kong, China, goes to the Six Cities Club Football Preliminary U17 Hong Kong Football Team to face Wuhan] (in Chinese). Sohu. 2007-04-13. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  The article notes: "谢天佑 TSE Tin Yau 中场 31-07-1991"
The first source provides significant coverage, the second source covers a fight Tse Tin Yau was involved in (which I am not considering to be significant coverage), and the third source is a passing mention. There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tse Tin Yau (traditional Chinese: 謝天佑; simplified Chinese: 谢天佑) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete lack of coverage in multiple independent sources. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:56, 30 November 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DarwinHealth[edit]

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

American biomedical company fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH and basically WP:NOTCRUNCHBASE. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Biology, Medicine, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. This article in Science and this article in The Economist are independent and very in-depth. It is a major research organization that has developed algorithms — potentially capable of cracking cancer's code, as covered in WSJ. Being a research organization, most of its coverage is in academia. A search on Google Scholar brings an extensive coverage about DarwinHealth. Sklerk (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: The Science article cited by Sklerk is secondary and in some depth, as is the WSJ piece. The Economist article doesn't mention DarwinHealth at all, though, so it needs to go, but WP:NCORP is just met by the sources given. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I'm unconvinced by the rationale presented so far. The first editor to keep is the author of the article, which, while it does not invalidate their submission, I do consider there to be a potential bias. I note they state GNG is met by listing a bunch of references. I disagree that they constitute extensive coverage. Most are passing references. This organization does good work, clearly. However the "coverage" tends to merely mention the research undertaken rather than in-depth information about the organization itself. I do not see the sustained, significant, in-depth coverage required by our subject-specific notability guideline for corporations and organizations. Just my view, though. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete- Rather than having in-depth details about the organisation, the "coverage" usually consists of mentioning the research that was done. I fail to see the consistent, noteworthy coverage to meet subject-specific notability guideline for businesses and organisations demands. Fails NCORP. 2409:40F3:A:3510:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously, you've commented here at random without actually reading the article or the comments above, where in-depth sources have been shared. 154.21.186.89 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per WeirdNAnnoyed. Some in-depth coverage already reviewed by WeirdNAnnoyed and additional coverage when I did a proper WP:BEFORE. Personalized Drug Screening for Functional Tumor Profiling by Victoria El-Khoury, Tatiana Michel, Hichul Kim, Yong-Jun Kwon (published in 2022) is independent of the subject and covers the organization directly and in-depth. 154.21.186.89 (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: per sources found by WeirdNAnnoyed. I'm surprised Andrea Califano doesn't have an article. // Timothy :: talk 00:06, 1 December 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. ✗plicit 14:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rohit Mehta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NACTOR. Google reveals various hits on another person of the same name who is a crypto CEO of some sort, and various other actors with the same first name, before this person even shows up (and it's a passing mention in a gossip rag). Sources in the article are gossip or primary. Previously deleted as A7 and G5, though I of course can't see why that is. Fermiboson (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Fermiboson (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nomination, you beat me to it, thanks. All I can find about him is a few gossip pages about his wedding, and obvious paid placement. In case you're still wondering about the G5 deletion from the last AFD, it was User:Abh01, a sockpuppet of User:Amansharma111, and this one will probably be flushed down the same pipe. Note that it was originally created as Rohit (Indian Actor) before I moved it to his actual name. Two weeks ago it was Rohit (Indian actor). Wikishovel (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Himachal Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: This doesn’t even need a nomination. Creator is a sockpuppet per G5. Nonetheless, it is wholly promotional with only a few sources that do not make it notable enough. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 14:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and salt - non-notable actor; page repeatedly recreated by likely undisclosed paid sockpuppets. This version was also created by a sockpuppet and is similar enough to the most recent deleted version (there are several) that it would qualify for G4 deletion had there been a complete deletion discussion, and would be eligible for G5 deletion if not for subsequent substantive editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seconding suggestion to salt, if that matters. Fermiboson (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - References are mainly tabloid type references and nothing that shows either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. I would say leave the AfD open instead of a G5 so we can discuss support for SALTING the page due to the WP:TENDENTIOUS attempts to re-create the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Mainly junk, tabloid references, created by a sock, name-dropping - strike three, page is out. Ravensfire (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per above. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:57, 30 November 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 Eritrean Premier League. Star Mississippi 03:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Denden FC[edit]

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

No sources since 2011. It doesn't seem like it can be improved. When sources are available it can be recreated. Dl.thinker (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dl.thinker (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Greenman (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Eritrean Premier League - the club does exist, see here, but doesn't look to be notable. Giant Snowman 19:03, 24 November 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. ✗plicit 14:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advance Concrete[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Minimally sourced. Reads like product advertisement. Kleuske (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Software. Kleuske (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Reads like an ad, only primary sources, search brings up nothing but the company's website and this very Wikipedia article.Cortador (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per above.Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:58, 30 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advance Steel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Hardly sourced. Reads like product advertisement. Kleuske (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Software. Kleuske (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Same deal as Advance Concrete: reads like an ad, only primary sources, searches bring up nothing significant.Cortador (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPRODUCT which requires "sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources." My searches for this product did not produce anything meeting that requirement. Spintendo 02:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: as per above, fails WP:NPRODUCT.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:58, 30 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kathy Bunka[edit]

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

Canadian not notable diplomat with no indication of reliable sources. Delete Tls9-me (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Iraq, Slovakia, Canada, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete coverage merely confirms she held roles rather than indepth to satisfy WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Just holding an office or role is not enough without the required RS coverage, which this article lacks. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 09:37, 30 November 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. Star Mississippi 03:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huang Renjie[edit]

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

Chinese not notable chess player with no indication of reliable sources. Delete Tls9-me (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:55, 23 November 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.
Sources
1. Chen, Yawen 陈雅雯 (2023-06-16). ""敢把皇帝拉下马"——国象甲联黄仁杰力擒韦奕旁记" ["Dare to bring down the emperor" - A side note of Huang Renjie's capture of Wei Yi by the National Chess Federation] (in Chinese). China.com [zh]. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  The article notes: "黄仁杰一直被称作中国国象界的新锐，是山东队重点培养的年轻棋手。作为2004年后出生的小将，黄仁杰的成绩也足够优秀，曾获得2018年世界青少年锦标赛超快棋赛14岁组第一名，2019年第四届全国智力运动会获国际象棋少年组个人及团体双料冠军，以及2021年获男子国象世界冠军分区赛中国区冠军。本次常规赛前八轮比赛中，黄仁杰取得5胜2平1负的不俗战绩，也是山东队的主要得分手。"
  From Google Translate: "Huang Renjie has always been called a rising star in China's national chess world and is a young chess player that the Shandong team focuses on training. As a young player born after 2004, Huang Renjie's performance is also good enough. He won the first place in the 14-year-old group of the 2018 World Youth Championship Blitz, and won both the individual and team awards in the chess youth group at the 4th National Mind Games in 2019. Champion, and the China Champion of the Men's National Physics World Championship Division in 2021. In the first eight rounds of this regular season, Huang Renjie achieved a good record of 5 wins, 2 draws and 1 loss, and is also the main scorer of the Shandong team."
2. Ge, Huizhong 葛会忠 (2020-01-17). "16岁小棋手黄仁杰与国际象棋"一见钟情"" [16-year-old chess player Huang Renjie fell in love with chess at first sight]. 中国体育报 [China Sports Daily] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  The article notes: "尚不满16岁的黄仁杰是一位下棋认真、吃饭“不够认真”的少年。1月16日，第二届“滨海新区杯”国际象棋中国公开赛在天津结束了第六轮的争夺，赛后和小伙伴一起吃小火锅时，两人并不是面对面坐着边聊边吃，在火锅开锅前黄仁杰也没有像大多数同龄人那样拿出手机玩游戏，而是打开手机里的国际象棋棋局认真研究起来，... 在去年的第四届全国智力运动会上，黄仁杰代表山东队获得了少年男子个人和少年男子团体两枚金牌。"
  From Google Translate: "Huang Renjie, who is not yet 16 years old, is a young man who plays chess seriously but is not serious enough about eating. On January 16, the second "Binhai New Area Cup" China Chess Open ended in the sixth round in Tianjin. After the game, when eating hotpot with friends, the two did not sit face to face and chat while eating. Before the hot pot started, Huang Renjie did not take out his mobile phone to play games like most of his peers. Instead, he opened the chess game on his mobile phone and studied it carefully... At the Fourth National Mind Games last year, Huang Renjie represented Shandong The team won two gold medals for the Junior Men's Individual and Junior Men's Team."
3. Chen, Yawen 陈雅雯 (2021-11-11). "青岛城阳队小将黄仁杰夺得"上海海湾杯"国际象棋新人王赛冠军" [Huang Renjie, a young player from Qingdao Chengyang Team, won the "Shanghai Gulf Cup" Chess Newcomer King Championship]. China.com [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  The article notes: "小将黄仁杰近来势头大好，2019年便帮助青岛城阳队以冠军之姿冲进甲级联赛。2021年初，黄仁杰代表兄弟队济南银丰队出战，夺取了第一届中国城市国际象棋联赛总冠军。今年五月底，黄仁杰在“华颐杯”2021年国际象棋男子世界冠军分区赛（中国区）中，击败各路强手，登上冠军宝座，成功闯进世界杯。有诸多成绩在前，本次黄仁杰夺取新人王赛冠军，是意外之喜，也在情理之中。"
  From Google Translate: "The young player Huang Renjie has been gaining momentum recently. In 2019, he helped the Qingdao Chengyang team enter the First Division as a champion. At the beginning of 2021, Huang Renjie played on behalf of his brothers team Jinan Yinfeng and won the first China City Chess League championship. At the end of May this year, Huang Renjie defeated various strong players in the "Huayi Cup" 2021 Men's World Chess Championship Division (China Region), ascended to the championship, and successfully entered the World Cup. With many achievements ahead of him, Huang Renjie's victory in the Rookie of the Year Championship is an unexpected surprise and is reasonable."
4. Xie, Bingxin 解冰昕 (2023-10-24). "黄仁杰夺得中国国际象棋新锐赛冠军" [Huang Renjie wins China Chess Emerging Championship] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  The article notes: "中国国际象棋协会消息，“瑞贝卡杯”2023年第三届中国国际象棋新锐赛23日在南京结束全部九轮争夺，最终黄仁杰夺得冠军，赵晨曦位列第二，奚奇获得季军。"
  From Google Translate: "According to the China Chess Association, the "Rebecca Cup" 2023 Third China Chess Emerging Competition concluded all nine rounds of competition in Nanjing on the 23rd. In the end, Huang Renjie won the championship, Zhao Chenxi ranked second, and Xi Qi won the third place."
5. Ge, Huizhong 葛会忠 (2023-08-01). "国际象棋世界杯赛黄仁杰轻松晋级" [Huang Renjie easily advanced to the Chess World Cup]. 中国体育报 [China Sports Daily] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  The article notes: "英伦和“00后”小将黄仁杰都需要从首轮打起。不过黄仁杰的对手美国棋手刘宇镇缺席首轮比赛，黄仁杰不战而胜，顺利进入第二轮。"
  From Google Translate: "Both England and the "post-00s" young player Huang Renjie need to start from the first round. However, Huang Renjie's opponent, American chess player Liu Yuzhen, was absent from the first round. Huang Renjie won without a fight and successfully entered the second round."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Huang Renjie (simplified Chinese: 黄仁杰; traditional Chinese: 黃仁傑) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:34, 29 November 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UNiiQu3[edit]

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

Article about a person that does not meet WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Not much about the subject to confer notability. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Not much about the subject to confer notability."

She has released music with Big Freedia, Whipped Cream, Aluna, Anna Lunoe, and more, who are also notable in the electronic music scene. She has been and continues to be covered by Billboard, Forbes, Vice, Complex, The Guardian, and more, all sources which I've provided.

Furthermore, she just opened the Renaissance Tour for Beyonce, and won a BMI award for her contributions to Chloe Bailey's debut single "Have Mercy". She's known for having launched Jersey club music to wider audiences, hence why she is dubbed the "Queen of Jersey club" in the title of most articles written about her. I have been a huge supporter in these electronic music scenes for years, and trust me, she's known; a quick Google search will give you even more thorough insight. I will continue to add all relevant sources.

If you are looking at musician stubs mainly to vote for article removal based on your personal viewpoint, then I'd love for you to provide clearer justification for deletion. Anarkafrica (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Likely TOOSOON, only a limited about of coverage [26], [27] and [28], all of which are trivial. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: In addition to the information I've provided above, she meets the criteria for notability. Particularly for number 1.

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

1. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries." Anarkafrica (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is a list of non-trivial sources [29], [30], [31], and [32]. Anarkafrica (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All except for the last ref are trivial. Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll exclude ref 6 because that's a tour mention (I'd included it because of the "non-trivial tour coverage" rule; however, the other sources very clearly point out the artist's background and why she is a notable fixture in the Jersey club music scene. Anarkafrica (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, but they are trivial/minimal length articles. We need extensive coverage of the person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood. I am finding and adding more sources - please keep checking the article. I've also included her BMI award. Anarkafrica (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She won a special mention as part of a group of other people, I'm not sure that helps notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I work professionally in the music production business. She is not merely being “mentioned” as you put it. She is credited and awarded as a songwtiter on the composition team. Anarkafrica (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, as a special mention. That's not notable here I'm afraid. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, being a part of a composition team is not known as a "special mention". You are downplaying her songwriting credibility. Anarkafrica (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's listed as a special mention in the website itself, she didn't win. Please go read the source. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not see the phrase "special mention" written anywhere on the website next to or in relation to her name.[33]

If you could kindly provide the specific url which states this, rather than assuming, then I will concede to your point. You also have yet to address the other users who are saying the same things as I am. Rather, you'd prefer to argue over something that we have provided proof for, repeatedly. Anarkafrica (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[34] Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the same link I provided and it's not written there.

I can do you one better, however, where it explicitly says Award and Uniiqu3 is holding an official BMI award that has been awarded to her:

[35] Anarkafrica (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As part of a group of people, I'm still not seeing notability, she's one in the long list. Oaktree b (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"As part of a group of people" Yes, who have all equally been given the same BMI award - which denotes notability in itself, as contributors, some of whom already have Wikipedia articles written about them. Here’s an example of what a special mention from BMI looks like, in case you were wondering:[36], which is completely different from the official award she has received. I even took it upon myself to email BMI.

I feel like I and others made ourselves very clear as we keep having to assert her notability, but since I’m tired and all the facts are here, I’ll let you have the last word.

No matter what the reply is to me after this, I feel confident in that all of the facts as per WP:GNG rules have been well presented. Anarkafrica (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Guardian here, AllMusic here, Crack (magazine) here, DJ Mag here, Pitchfork review here and others so that WP:GNG is passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Precisely. Not only has she been the front page feature on those websites, she has also been mentioned by each of these sources multiple times. I don't see any founded reason to delete her page. Anarkafrica (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I agree with other commentators on keep. There are enough recognized sources to view this artist as credible. Juju (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep; as this article is well over the three-source guideline – with very high-quality, independent sources, too! Mover of molehills^{move me} 23:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: There seems to be WP:MEAT activities on this talk page 94rain ^Talk 23:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, but can't prove anything. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How did you come to that conclusion? Can you be specific? Djflem (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mean page? There is no talk page for the article or this AFD. Djflem (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There were continuous comments that were pro-Keep for the article on the Talk page and they all got removed because of being on the wrong discussion page.

I only noticed the first few votes and told them to rather add their voices to the AfD discussion here if they wanted to include their viewpoints, but the comments kept flooding the Talk page.

This seems to be the reason why they were removed, at least according to the user that deleted them, rather than WP:MEAT. Anarkafrica (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Sources provided satisfy GNG. Djflem (talk) 06:03, 28 November 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. ✗plicit 14:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Syed Mohammed Saeed Raza[edit]

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

Non-notable poet or writer, no mentions in Books other than being father of Abdul Qavi Desnavi. Just a father of notable person does not make him notable. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, India, and Bihar. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Poetry, and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete -This article's subject are not currently notable or they dont meet's WP:POET & WP:AUTHOR.~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 14:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Partial merge to Abdul Qavi Desnavi as WP:ATD, where subject is mentioned. —siro χ o 04:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kindly Refer to page 14 of the 1954 edition Magazine St. Xavier's College, Bombay

[37]https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ng8nTWw2b_QH3524KdjWklaHuFN9RzB6/view

Kindly Refer to page 14,43 of the 1953 edition Magazine St. Xavier's College, Bombay

[38]https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HV75Oa18EosMmsQkNknn7a-oMMXoCtgt/view Bpldxb 10:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Subject does not have too much coverage. Royal88888 (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 09:40, 30 November 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!} 08:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania Institute of Management and Research[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promo piece on a non-notable private biz school. Published years ago, but IMO should never have got through AfC (accepted by a since-blocked sock). Cites only primary sources, and BEFORE finds nothing beyond the usual rankings, directory listings, sponsored content and social media. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT by some margin. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, and India. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete for the reasons stated in the nomination. Also, not only does this article heavily rely on primary sources, it doesn't even use them correctly e.g. the section about collaborations only links to the sites of other institutes, and not even to pages where said supposedly collaborations are confirmed, effectively artificially expanding the sources section.Cortador (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Relies excessively on primary sources and 25 out of the 26 references are not used properly. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 19:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not just those e.g. reference 13 claims that the school got an award from the Times Group, but the reference just links to the main page of the Times Group website, not to any subpage about the award. Half the references are like that. Cortador (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete based in what I can see in English. Prepared to reconsider if there are good sources in Hindi. Mccapra (talk) 19:47, 23 November 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!} 08:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chitraloka.com[edit]

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

The sources are mostly not about the portal. Extremely poor and superficial coverage, delete. Tls9-me (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Keep. This article [39] is entirely about the website. It may seem to mention the name Chitraloka a few times but ctrl-f Veeresh and the source tells the whole back story behind the website. This website was the only website reporting the full details of the Kidnapping of Rajkumar in 2000 [40]. Also, "the first website to be solely focused on Kannada cinema" gives unique notability. DareshMohan (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Strong keep per DareshMohan. This says it was one of only two websites giving frequent news about Kannada cinema in the early 2000s. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Websites, India, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Delete article based on passing mentions and lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mccapra: I added [41], [42] [43], which were fully about the website and removed the passing mentions. DareshMohan (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I’m a bit doubtful about how independent those pieces are but they are much more substantial coverage so I’ll strike my !vote. Mccapra (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep in view of the additional references identified in this discussion that show significant coverage about the website, so that WP:GNG is passed imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:15, 29 November 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!} 08:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Softengi[edit]

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

Clear promotion, I've already removed not referenced parts with links to PR.com and other not reliable press-releases; the remaining few sources are not reliable and routine. Delete per not WP:NCORP Tls9-me (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing can improve the page,

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: "2023 November 23" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

for lack of verifiability Sl67890 (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Technology, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Coverage found in Gnews, for the company, consists of numerous hits, all Forbes Council articles, which are not RS. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 23 November 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!} 07:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advance Design[edit]

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

Brochure advertising article in the GRAITEC series. See coi report. No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 08:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Same deal as Advance Concrete and Advance Steel.Cortador (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Engineering, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSOFT. Owen× ☎ 15:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPRODUCT which requires "sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources." My searches for this product, as with the other GRAITEC products in this line, did not produce anything meeting that requirement. Spintendo 02:56, 24 November 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. The IP editor (or IP editors, but it looks like one) has put some work into defending the article, but providing more references which mention her and her books but do not give substantial coverage to her does not outweigh the policy-based arguments given by other editors for deletion. JBW (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anne-Lot Hoek[edit]

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

Every single reference in this article is a link to one of the many itemised published articles in the Literature and Bibliography section. A writer writes articles, so we really don't have notability. Everything else in here is WP:NOTCV. We have the publication of a book on Bali, but the grounds for notability for the work or its author are scant - vide being shortlisted for a redlinked prize. In total, we fail WP:GNG - despite the polish that has been invested here. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: I removed the links to her website, her publisher and her booking agent... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. May I ask why that is? E.g. on the site of David van Reybrouck they are also shown? 41.13.243.178 (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Indonesia, and Netherlands. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for including her on your list. 105.245.233.60 (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment If it can be proved she is a journalist-in-residence at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study then she would likely be notable. It not the kind of placement that is handed out in a lucky bag. The prize she was awarded seems quite minor. I can't find any reviews on the book. Perhaps some in dutch. It took 7 years to write so likely notable. Its a major historical work. The article is a completely unsourced, but could be trimmed if a source could be found for the placement. There is likely dutch language refs that could found. I think on the whole she will probably be notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi A review of the book can be found on one of the most notable newspaper of the Netherlands, where she received 4 stars:

https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2021/11/25/dit-boek-doet-gruwelijke-onthullingen-over-de-geheime-nederlandse-gevangenissen-op-bali-a4066801 105.245.233.60 (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The book De strijd om Bali was also chosen by Dutch prize winning author Adriaan van Dis as the book that has most influenced him (more than any other novel or scientific book he ever read on the subject). He explains this in the Rudy Kousbroek lecture.

https://www.atlascontact.nl/2023/11/03/de-kolonie-mept-terug-10e-rudy-kousbroeklezing-door-adriaan-van-dis/ 105.245.233.60 (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And De strijd om Bali is also recommended by #2 New York Times bestselling author Roxane van Iperen and prizewinning author David van Reybrouck 105.245.233.60 (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added some news coverage of her book. (I'm not personally familiar with finding scholarly sources in this field – I feel that would be better to look for). This 2015 article in the NRC opinion supplement, on the violent history of the Dutch East Indies and looking back at this period in history in the present, generated a response in NRC (alternative link) from Gert Oostindie, director of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies. Bridget (talk) ~~02:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)~~ 04:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. A journalist who has penned down one book. The setup of the article in English and Dutch is misleading and double-dipping. From all I could find, the nominator stands correct in this nomination! gidonb (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear sir/madam, it is not intended as double dipping but meant to make them available to a wider audience. The lage landen (renowned magazine in Belgium) made the translations into French and English in separate magazines due to their significance. 105.245.233.60 (talk) 14:52, 25 November 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!} 08:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does source 5 not make her notable? She was nominated for the "De Libris history prize", which seems to be a big deal. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really IMHO - the bluelinked Libris Prize is a prize for novels, the history prize isn't this. Additionally, the novel was shortlisted, not a winner. WP:BOOKCRIT tells us, "the book has won a major literary award." My bold! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The prize is a big deal in the Netherlands, also being shortlisted from 230 books into the top 5 (which also receives prize money). There is a Dutch Wikipedia page for the Libris History Prize (Libris Geschiedenis Prijs). It is the top prize for non-fiction. The top 5 is widely promoted in the country. 105.245.233.60 (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: delete based on the discussion of the award and lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear sir/madam,

With all respect, the argument she has only written one book I believe doesn’t hold. She worked on it for seven years and was chosen as one of the best 5 history books of 2022 of the Netherlands. There is a fiction prize (Libris) and a non-fiction prize (Libris History Prize). In addition she writes for national newspapers. The fact there are translations of articles is not to blow things up but because a well known publisher in Belgium (de lage landen) has published those articles in multiple languages due to their significance. It makes them also accessible to people from multiple countries. In case you have more questions please let me know.

Kind regards and thank you for your non-paid effort to optimize Wikipedia!

Kind regards, Ewout — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.245.233.60 (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bar is higher than that. Plus the argument she has only written one book does hold. It would not hold if she had published a number of books different from one. The long work on the book was mostly the author's PhD studies and her dissertation research/writing. A well-received book is a career accomplishment. Let's appreciate that and not make it more than it is! gidonb (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gideon, I am sorry, I didn’t know it was that important to add other books she also published and contributed to as well. I have added a range now, including books in Belium and the UK. 41.13.243.178 (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Anon. I will give this another look, given the additional information! gidonb (talk) 11:31, 27 November 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!} 07:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ibrahim Barssi[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for BLP sources since 2020, the only citation used is a self-published website. I wasn’t able to find any RS sources to fulfill WP:GNG PigeonChickenFish (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Egypt, Sudan, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: No coverage found for an artist, only hits on a cricket player with the same name. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete If that website is the references is that all that can be found then this person is a long way from notable. TarnishedPath^talk 12:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Beyond the website listed here I found a flickr page for him [44]. That obviously doesn't help though. No evidence of WP:ARTIST or other notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Subject not Notable. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Subject not have much coverage. Royal88888 (talk) 02:57, 27 November 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. Daniel (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Susheela Jayapal[edit]

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

Delete. Candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. The office held is a local office and while some local officeholders can meet notability for a variety of reasons, including time in office (e.g. Robert L. Butler or Hilmar Moore) or being a local officeholder who qualifies under some other criteria (e.g. Rita Crundwell, Betty Loren-Maltese for crime). Notability is not inherited from Pramila Jayapal or Maya Jayapal. Possible redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Oregon.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Mpen320 (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: I think this article could meet WP:NPOL's local politician criteria (lots of articles about her, the first Indian American elected to a county office in the state). I think I'm a soft keep here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Oppose Jayapal's announcement has received multiple dedicated articles by national outlets ([45], [46], [47], [48] [49], [50]) in less than 24 hours, in addition to extensive local coverage ([51], [52], [53]). Prior to this she has been routinely covered by reliable local outlets for multiple years. In my opinion the bar for general notability has already been met, and there will certainly be more national coverage of this race. She is also the first and only Indian American ever elected in Oregon which is significant given the state's demographics. Jamedeus (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reply. The extensive coverage you cite is run of the mill announcement coverage in part due to her relationship to her sister. As mentioned in my nomination, notability is not inherited. Additionally, we should not necessarily create a Wikipedia article about the same 109 newspaper articles. GNG requires significant coverage of the subject which the national articles do not provide. Additionally, local coverage (which again is a run of the mill campaign announcement) does not lend itself to GNG or NPOL. Your mention of "in less than 24 hours" also proves my point. It is too soon to know if her candidacy will actually matter to the historic record (see Christine O'Donnell or Lar Daly). While in some circumstances a "first" can cause one to meet GNG or NPOL, first Indian American in a particular US state is a very narrow first even if that US state does not have a large Indian-American population. I'm not saying she is not accomplished. I'm saying she does not meet GNG or NPOL at this time. Also, you may want to edit your "Strong Oppose" to "Strong Keep," to reflect you wish for the article to be kept and avoid confusion.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I think there is sufficient coverage of her election and service on the Multnomah County Commission to meet GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, I agree with Bearcat (below) about the standard we should evaluate local county commissioners and political candidates. I just think there is sufficient sourcing to draft an article about her policies and votes on the Commission that would merit a stand-alone article. There are articles about her election outside of Oregon, in the Seattle Times and the India Post. There are multiple articles about her work on the Commission, largely in Willamette Week. All of this is prior to her announcement for Congress, where coverage has increased. - Enos733 (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage — so if campaign coverage were in and of itself sufficient to exempt a candidate from WP:NPOL, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be unenforceable and meaningless. So no, candidates don't get to be in Wikipedia just because run of the mill campaign coverage exists — candidates get articles only if either (a) they already have some other prior claim of preexisting notability that would already have gotten them a Wikipedia article anyway (which county commission is not), or (b) they can make some credible claim that their candidacy is somehow a special case of such uniquely greater notability than everybody else's candidacies that even if they lose their candidacy itself would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway (which hasn't been shown to be on the table here at all.) Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I believe that the subject in the article is notable enough to warrant an article and meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Jayapal is a current office holder for a major US government (Multnomah County, which has a population of over 800,000). If she does not meet the notabilty guidelines, then we should delete the articles for all of Portland's city commissioners, who represent a smaller level of government with a smaller population. Jayapal has been featured in several news articles from outside of the immediate area for her work unrelated to her candidacy. PortlandSaint (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reply. She is technically not the incumbent. As far as "then we should delete the articles for all of Portland's city commissioners," you are more than welcome to do propose this. The existence of other articles of a similar nature is not grounds to keep this article.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I agree that the sources are just routine coverage of a politician being elected. As said before, Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS makes PortlandSaint's argument irrelevant.

Industrial Insect (talk) 19:43, 9 November 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!} 05:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as this is looking like a No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep A lot of this coverage is run of the mill, but I think there is just barely enough here to warrant keeping. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NPOL, and most of the coverage she has received seems to be ROTM. Let'srun (talk) 04:09, 24 November 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. Editors interested in a possible Merge can start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nirim attack[edit]

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

This attack has no need to be a standalone page outside of 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, where the three paragraphs on the attack can be easily accommodated, and where the material would sit in it broader context (WP:PAGEDECIDE). Some of the detail here is poorly supported by the in-line citation and needs reworking. The only statement providing a firm casualty count at the time of this nomination, for example, actually failed verification, with the citation containing only a trivial mention of the attack. The number of injured is then a question mark: "many", and there is no count of the attackers either. Overall, between the thin detail / other content issues, and the lack of an obvious need for a standalone page, the page should be merged. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Terrorism, Islam, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - There is enough information here to warrant a separate article. 09:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Dovidroth (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep 'Only' 5 Israelis were killed in Nirim. So indeed, it might not be entitled to be a full 'massacre'. Only the bravery of a few citizens prevented a massacre and attrocities seen in nearby kibbuzim by Hamas terrorists. But this is a story that justifies an article, distinct from and not overshadowed by the horrendous, cruel massacres in Nova, Be'eri and Kfar Aza. Furtermore, most likely that the article will be expanded and updated in the future as details are uncovered, such as the fate of the kibbutz members that were kidnapped, the restoration of the kibbutz etc. And last, just looking at the readable prose size, there is no technical necessity for a merge. GidiD (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's less that there's a technical necessity for a merge so much as there was never a technical necessity for a standalone page separate from 2023 Hamas attack on Israel in the first place. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep considering notability, media coverage. Well sourced page, should be kept.

^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10] Homerethegreat (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

^ Lidman, Melanie. "In a kibbutz down south, where the kids can tell a Hamas 'boom' from an Israeli one". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 2021-04-10. Retrieved 2023-10-21.
^ Kottasová, Muhammad Darwish,Nic Robertson,Artemis Moshtaghian,Amir Tal,Ivana (2023-10-11). "Children found 'butchered' in Israeli kibbutz, IDF says, as horror of Hamas' attacks near border begins to emerge". CNN. Retrieved 2023-11-24.((cite web)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ צורי, מתן (2023-10-11). "המחבלים הסתערו, חברי כיתות הכוננות נלחמו על הבית: כל הקרבות ההירואיים" [The terrorists stormed, the members of the standby classes fought for the house: all the heroic battles]. Ynet (in Hebrew). Retrieved 2023-11-03.
^ "קיבוץ נירים" [Kibbutz Nirim]. Kibbutz Nirim. Archived from the original on 2007-06-02. Retrieved 2023-10-21.
^ "Israel says Hamas commander who led attack in Nirim killed in airstrike, shares video". Hindustan Times. 2023-10-15. Retrieved 2023-11-21.
^ "רבשצ היישוב נירים: תפסנו עמדת שליטה, הם הבינו את זה והחליטו לסגת מנירים" [We took a commanding position, they realized it and decided to withdraw from Nirim]. 103FM - האזנה לרדיו און ליין (in Hebrew). Archived from the original on 2023-10-17. Retrieved 2023-10-21.
^ "4 תושבי נירים מול עשרות מחבלים: "לא האמנו שנשרוד" - וואלה! חדשות" [4 residents of Nirim facing dozens of terrorists: "We didn't believe we would survive"]. וואלה! (in Hebrew). 2023-10-16. Archived from the original on 2023-10-21. Retrieved 2023-10-21.
^ "החייל הראשון נכנס לקיבוץ ב-13:41. 7 שעות מתחילת האירוע" [The first soldier entered the kibbutz at 13:41. 7 hours from the start of the event]. Mako. 2023-10-12. Archived from the original on 2023-10-15. Retrieved 2023-10-21.
^ Fabian, Emanuel (15 October 2023). "IDF says it killed Hamas commander who led murderous attacks on Nirim, Nir Oz". 21 November 2023.
^ "Israel kills Hamas commanders responsible for attacks in Kibbutz Nirim, Nir Oz". Business Today. 2023-10-15. Retrieved 2023-11-21.

Keep as it's more than notable. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per above. As proven above, in the article, and elsewhere, all these massacres are inherently notable. This particular article is long and unique enough enough not to merge. WP:SNOW does apply. gidonb (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Easily notable based on wide and persistent coverage by independent reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. As with the dozen other articles, every event in the atrocious attack is not independently notable. The sources above are entirely primary (mostly WP:PRIMARYNEWS), there is no separate notability of this particular event, and no secondary analysis of this portion of the attack has emerged beyond WP:ITEXISTS. It is far, far WP:TOOSOON to tell which attacks, massacres and other crimes will prove to have an enduring WP:EFFECT independent of the overall attack. A telltale element here is that the flurry of reporting around this particular portion of the attack has not been sustained; passing mentions like the killing of the commander are readily found, but in-depth analysis simply does not exist. For direct policy rationale beyond what I have linked above, I'd say that this falls very clearly in WP:EVENTCRIT #4. This was an horrific act that is more than covered by the parent article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per above. Sources and content in the article show this meets WP:N and has the properly sourced content to support a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 07:01, 29 November 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!} 07:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Six Flags Hill[edit]

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

In theory, this should meet WP:GEOLAND. However, I couldn't find the sources to confirm this or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is unverifiable. At best it's an undocumented TV reporter's nickname back in 2006 for some hill, whose true name the reporter didn't know, somewhere in the Sweetwater Creek State Park, whose geology is in that article. We don't know even what hill from the article because it's a random mish-mash from other editors trying to be helpful and do cleanup. The coördinates added later cannot be anywhere near the right place, for example, because they aren't on a hill and are on the wrong side of the theme park according to the article. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I can only find one brief mention of this hill anywhere in an RS - [54]. The reference in the article isn't even for this feature. It is for a different hill in Missouri. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, not only does the article subject not appear to meet GNG, I'm concerned that the whole "Buford Uprising" paragraph is a hoax. LadyofShalott 13:09, 24 November 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. ✗plicit 06:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nauru–United Kingdom relations[edit]

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

Last AfD was 15 years ago and WP has developed stronger ideas of notability since then. There is no significant coverage of these relations which previous keep votes failed to address. Any relations can be covered in British Western Pacific Territories and History of Nauru. LibStar (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Oceania. LibStar (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Last AfD is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nauru-United Kingdom relations
Delete I'll quote from the FCO website: "The UK government does not have any permanent representation in Nauru but covers it remotely from Honiara in the Solomon Islands." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 23:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete -- I can find no sources at all that would make this notable (fails GNG). We do not need a stand-alone article for every combination of countries on the planet. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:44, 29 November 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. ✗plicit 06:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Datangshan[edit]

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

This article cites no sources and has no evidence of notability other than having a museum (which has its own article). The location itself is not notable. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: The relevant guideline is WP:GEOLAND. Does Datangshan pass WP:GEOLAND?
Datangshan is a hill and village in Xiaotangshan, Beijing, where it is mentioned. Xiaotangshan, Beijing is a possible redirect target if Datangshan found to be non-notable. Here are two sources I found:
1. "北京小汤山，热气腾腾的疗愈之地" [Xiaotangshan, Beijing, a steaming place of healing]. Beijing Daily (in Chinese). 2022-01-25. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12. Retrieved 2023-11-12.
  The article notes: "北京城北约40里，有一座由三个山峰组成的独立小山，山形如笔架，因有温泉泉眼，被古人命名为“大汤山”。大汤山以西约一千米处，有三个低矮山丘，也有温泉，被称为“小汤山”。在因抗疫而被载入史册之前，小汤山就是著名的疗愈之地，并受到多位皇帝青睐，也是民国时的旅游胜地。"
  From Google Translate: "About 40 miles north of Beijing, there is an independent hill composed of three peaks. The mountain is shaped like a pen stand. It was named "Datang Mountain" by the ancients because of its hot springs. About one thousand meters west of Datang Mountain, there are three low hills and hot springs, which are called "Xiaotang Mountain". Before it was recorded in history for its anti-epidemic work, Xiaotangshan was a famous healing place and was favored by many emperors. It was also a tourist attraction during the Republic of China."
2. Wang, Jiucheng 王久成 (2023-06-23). "北京小湯山" [Beijing Xiaotangshan]. World Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-12. Retrieved 2023-11-12.
  The article notes:
  小湯山村發展成小湯山鎮，幾乎人所共知；殊不知還有一個鮮為人知的大湯山村，明代已經形成村落。村北有一個一百三十餘米高的山丘，與小湯山村一樣因山丘得名。原來大湯山村水資源豐富，山腳下有多處泉眼，泉水常年流淌不斷，溫度攝氏二十度左右，足以供村民生活和灌溉附近的農田所用。
  曾有諺語說：「大湯山好地方，山清水秀好風光。蔬菜四季有，花果滿山崗；池塘黑泥藕兒白，山下熱水稻兒香。」自然資源並非無窮盡，一九六○年代水源枯竭。大湯山村隸屬小湯山鎮，距小湯山村很近，雖然也有些企業單位入住，但村的境況遠不如小湯山村。
  From Google Translate:
  Xiaotangshan Village developed into Xiaotangshan Town, which is almost known to everyone; but little-known is that there is also a little-known Datangshan Village, which was already formed as a village in the Ming Dynasty. There is a hill more than 130 meters high in the north of the village. Like Xiaotangshan Village, it is named after the hill. It turns out that Datangshan Village is rich in water resources. There are many springs at the foot of the mountain. The spring water flows continuously all year round. The temperature is about 20 degrees Celsius, which is enough for the villagers to live and irrigate nearby farmland.
  A proverb once said: "Datang Mountain is a good place, with clear mountains and beautiful scenery. Vegetables are available all year round, and the hills are full of flowers and fruits; the ponds are black and the mud is white, and the rice is fragrant in the hot water at the foot of the mountain." Natural resources are not endless. In the 1960s, Water sources dry up. Datangshan Village is affiliated to Xiaotangshan Town and is very close to Xiaotangshan Village. Although some corporate units have moved in, the village's situation is far inferior to that of Xiaotangshan Village.
Cunard (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep as meeting WP:GEOLAND per Hzh's rationale below. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 24 November 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) 04:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to get a second opinion on these new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Datangshan looks to be an officially recognized and populated village in Xiaotangshan, Beijing,[55][56] therefore should qualify under WP:GEOLAND which, as far as I can tell, doesn't say anything against the inclusion of a village. If anyone disapprove of a village being considered notable, then that should be taken at the talk page at WP:Notability (geographic features). Hzh (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per User:Hzh. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:28, 25 November 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 Liberia–United States relations. ✗plicit 06:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Monrovia[edit]

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

Most of the history section of this article is about Liberia–United States relations and not the embassy. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Liberia-United States relations as a valid ATD. There doesn't appear to be coverage about the embassy building specifically. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or redirect — no mention of the building. — Biruitorul ^Talk 23:52, 23 November 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!} 07:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Helen Toner[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E - Notable for only a single WP:RECENT event, and references are only related to that event. She could be a line in OpenAI about the circumstances. ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Only claim to viability notably is her membership in the board of OpenAI, but until recently that didn't generate any coverage and also no-one saw the need for an article. Now that she had left the board it seems clear that there won't be any further relevance other than this single event. 92.12.19.43 (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. There is now articles about her in The Guardian and Sydney Morning Herald among others. — fnielsen (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Technology, Australia, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Recently known during the OpenAI saga. Being part of a single event doesn't constitute a page on Wikipedia. – NirvanaToday^t@lk 21:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep

This isn't about Recentism, the article is compliant with NPOV.

Guidelines for BLP notable for a single event may be found here.

"We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:"

1) "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event."

Not met - reliable sources have covered her before this event, she was quite high profile in the EA community.

2) "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article."

-Also not met. Hasn't been a low profile individual since appointment to OpenAI board in 2021 and will certainly not remain low profile as time goes on

3) "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented".

-Plainly not met.

For this argument to stand R.E. deletion all 3 of these should be fulfilled. 131.111.128.130 (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I think "recency bias" (sorry, I guess that's not a wikip policy or a deletion guidance principle) leads those who would delete to weigh the recent news activity as "obvious evidence" that she's otherwise non-notable. Finding more details about her work & writing the article to present the topic in a fulsome way will show that she is notable outside recent events. Her role in recent newsworthy events is also notable and worth covering, but should not be the "sole focus" of the article. --skakEL 15:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There are other reasons for her notability; most of the article is not about the recent controversy. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep

· She's one of the leaders at a major university's center studying an important social issue (impact of AI on society).

· The Recentism charge suggests that she wasn't notable before. If that were the case that would imply that OpenAI picked a random non-notable person to be on their board. Obviously, they wouldn't have just picked someone off the street; they picked her precisely because she *is* a notable figure in this area.

· Even re the Recentism charge: it's a major event in the history of an important issue, so for future historical reasons the page should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalfrock (talk • contribs) 16:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Btw are there stats on how often article has been viewed? It might help decide how worthy of retention it is. Not the only measure, of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burraron (talk • contribs) 18:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep She has received major coverage. Meets GNG. Thriley (talk) 02:10, 30 November 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. Inadequate deletion rationale, I hope editors here can add sources they found to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sonora Union High School[edit]

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

It's just a high school. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California. Skynxnex (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep: no rationale for deletion given. "It's a high school" is not a valid rationale. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 04:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To elaborate: you need to explain why this fails our general notability guideline. High schools aren't inherently notable, but they're also non inherently not notable. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 04:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the authors should evidence notablity of the subject by added more references. Regardless the school is notable or not, current form of the article is very trivial, one sentence which is not sourced and two data items which have reference in infobox, it is substance of the article for now. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - In addition to the lack of rationale for the deletion of the school by the nominator, GNG/NSCHOOL guidelines are met through several sources, from which I plan to add information to the article. These alone can be found through a simple Google search. I recommended the nom look at the BEFORE policy.

~~[57]~~

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61] BurgeoningContracting 02:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BurgeoningContracting Can you check your links? None of those work for me. Thanks. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete; I dont like school articles anyway, and this was obvs created as a coatrack for on coming allegations. Ceoil (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Everyone at Wikipedia who has done a few edits and is not actively blocked can have access to the wikipedia library, which includes free access to newspapers.com, among other things. A quick scan of newspapers.com shows tens of thousands of newspaper articles for either "sonora high school" or "sonora union high school", limited to sources in California. When nominating a school article for deletion, it would be wise to do this first, as doing the other steps in WP:BEFORE. Remember that policy requires that sources WP:NEXIST, not that they are currently in the article. A very small effort finds these tens of thousands of sources, looking through them it is apparent that there are many that provide significant coverage of the subject of the article. This is easily sufficient to meet the general notability guideline (and therefore WP:NSCHOOL), so the article should be kept and expanded rather than deleted. All that said, I sympathize with the nominator that the article is poorly referenced in its current state, but again, that is not a valid reason to delete, nor is not liking it. Jacona (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I'm currently having trouble making clippings from newspapers.com, but the first mention of the high school I found was from September 6, 1906 in the Corning Daily Observer, so this school is at least 117 years old. Since the internet is only a few years old, it is probable that the vast majority of existing sources are not online. Jacona (talk) 03:55, 27 November 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. ✗plicit 06:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My.Club[edit]

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

Fails NCORP. Sources are either passing mention, or stunt pulling caused by the company paying lots of money, from sources of questionable reliability. Fermiboson (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fermiboson (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Websites. Skynxnex (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom, fails NCORP. Katy Williamson (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per nom. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:59, 24 November 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. ✗plicit 06:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hilda Williams[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:NBASIC. The only sources found are databases and passing mentions. Tails Wx 03:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and United Kingdom. Tails Wx 03:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 16 November 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!} 03:02, 23 November 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. I don't see a consensus here and with no comments coming after the second relisting, I doubt a third one would be productive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

National African Immigrant Heritage Month[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG since there is almost no coverage of this failed legislation in any media outlet.

Perhaps this article could be rescued into a longer article about the various national efforts to establish the heritage month, but that would require significant improvements. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Events, Politics, Education, and United States of America. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to African immigration to the United States. That article could have a few sentences but I don't think this page is necessary to cover a resolution that only passed one house.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs)
Comment See this talk page discussion with WayMaQueen. If this article is rewritten to cover the broader topic of National Immigrant Heritage Month, I would be in favor of retaining it, despite my original AfD nomination. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the two are different months. National Immigrant Heritage Month was a White House proclamation, to happen in May. They should be two different articles. — Maile (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep -It was not "failed legislation". This one is a Congressional resolution, celebrated in September. Please see: A Guide to Legislative Votes, "Resolutions are not laws; rather, they are expressions of the “sentiments” of either the House or Senate." It's sourced and correct, H.Res.371 — 111th Congress (2009-2010). The article is explanatory, so it does not necessarily need more. Please see Category:Commemorative months - it's within line with other such articles. — Maile (talk) 03:09, 16 November 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!} 03:01, 23 November 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. While this looks like a keep/N/C the delete !votes have policy with them Star Mississippi 03:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tulhão[edit]

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

Subject is an amateur footballer with close to no professional career experience. He fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV - nothing more than the usual stuff of transfer reports, mostly automatically generated and unreliable stats pages and the occasional Facebook post - none of them qualifying as a reliable source. [62] Angelo (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Notable figure in the Italian lower leagues (also has played in Serie C for what it's worth). 2016 interview, 2019 interview, 2022 interview and various general reports on him, just about enough for GNG in my opinion. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note for the other participants: the user above is the original author of the article. That said, about those three interviews, the first two of them are consequential to the signing of the player by some team (especially the first one). The second one comes from a website that explicitly covers only the fully amateur regional Eccellenza league of Umbria, so I would not define it as a valid source, and both the second and third of those links are just non-significant coverage regarding amateur football. If that is all you can find, I am sorry but these sources just do not turn out to be WP:SIGCOV to me. --Angelo (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - According to Soccerway, he played professionally in Italian Serie C for some teams. It's on the threshold of notability, but in principle, I don't see why it should be excluded. Svartner (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apart from the fact his professional career is limited to six league games, having played professionally does not automatically infer notability anymore. What matters is whether the subject clearly passes WP:GNG through reliable sources or not. Angelo (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You must consider that the athlete in question is still active, and the numbers may change during his career. Along this, it is not completely clear that the article falls into WP:GNG, as I said previously, it is on a non-evident threshold. Svartner (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the athlete ever becomes notable in the future, the article can be still recreated. Notability has to be established in the current moment, not based on whether he can become so in the future. As mentioned originally and earlier, WP:GNG is the only criteria to be used, and in this case all I could find was almost exclusively empty mentions and minor articles who are either not independent (transfer reports from clubs/league pages, etc) or do not comply with WP:SIGCOV. Angelo (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you, I just mentioned this fact, but I didn't base the argument entirely on it. But I think it's plausible to wait a little longer before deleting the article itself. Svartner (talk) 21:01, 19 November 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!} 23:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Appears to meet content requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per above. Player with ongong career with many sources with experience in fully pro Serie C. Article needs improvemewnt, nopt deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where are the sources showing significant coverage? Giant Snowman 21:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analyzing the arguments above against our P&Gs, I'm not terribly moved by the keep !votes. Relisting to establish further consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; none of the coverage discussed above is from a secondary source or provides in-depth coverage. Jogurney (talk) 18:28, 24 November 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!} 07:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Rhodes (cricketer, born 1883)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reopening this deletion request as its been over 2 years since the first deletion request resulted in no consensus waiting for additional sources to prove sufficient notability and no such sources have been found. Dazzling4 (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A very quick initial look makes me think that this is either a keep, based on NEXIST, or a redirect to the List of Yorkshire County Cricket Club players - which is the long established consensus for dealing with articles where we can find so little biographical information to create an article and have little chance of doing so. In this case we have dates and the era in which he played. Playing for Yorkshire Second XI plenty of times between 1911 and 1913 suggests to me that there's a likelihood that sources exist in regional newspapers - presumably the Yorkshire Post and others. Put that alongside the offline Yorkshire book source already offered and I wonder how much detail there is on the bloke. He got a very short Wisden obituary, which is unusual for single appearance players, and my gut feeling is that there may be other offline sources there that I have no hope of being able to access. If he were a New Zealander we'd know easily - in this case we'd need someone with access to suitable newspaper archives in the UK. Given that we can verify who he was and that he existed from multiple sources, I have no reason to think that delete is an option here - this is either a redirect, which I wouldn't be opposed to, or a keep Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep My position remains the same as the previous AfD. Given his 1 FC appearance, and Second XI appearances for Yorkshire, probably the most covered county in the country at the time, there will be significant offline coverage of the subject. At worst should be a redirect to List of Yorkshire County Cricket Club players. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not opposed to redirect, but I don't think leaving the article limping on in this sad state for another 5 years is a good solution. Dazzling4 (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. An infobox would be a nice addition. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I've added more on his brief career. Johnlp (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider Johnlp's addition and the suggested potential redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment (see above for initial comments) - I'm happier to keep after Johnlp's additions Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per additions and above arguments. St Anselm (talk) 17:20, 25 November 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 as it appears the issues re: GEOLAND qualification have been resolved. If it and Heiner/Hiner need merging or other renaming, it can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 03:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trace Fork (née Whitsett, Kentucky)[edit]

Advanced search for:
"Trace Fork"

In books/documents
Google Books · Questia Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Questia · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal Microsoft Academic: new · original Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central · Questia HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

More
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

Fails WP:NPLACE. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: same as Whitaker, Kentucky
Dazzling4 (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - from a satellite view, this looks like an old coal town, probably for a long-shutdown coal mine. It's got a typical coal town's street layout - like a subdivision pasted on the side of steep hill. (I've been to Perry County, Kentucky but not to this place. I am familiar with how old coal towns were organized).
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll look into this later, but see WP:RENNICK for something that is generally a good starting point for looking into these type places. Hog Farm _Talk 22:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Rennick has several mentions of this - we get The Ky. R. Coal Co. had a mine and camp at Whitsett, a statement that it was a station on the Danger Fork spur along with Duane and Heiner (possibly Hiner, Kentucky?), and a statement that Whitsett was a local station on the L&N railroad near the post office of Tub, Kentucky. Per this from 1919, a coal tipple and conveyor were built at Whitsett by Kentucky River Coal Company in expectation that a railroad would be extended through there (which it did so). Mr. Whitsett ran the company, which is apparently where the name came from. If I'm reading this correctly, there was a Whitsett No. 1 Mine, with the associated post office in Hiener. A late 1920s court case heard arguments about allegedly unfair rates to ship coal from Whitsett. I'm finding a number of references to this place, but always as a mine and railroad on-shipping point with the Kentucky River Coal Company. Searching in newspapers brought up only a wave of usage of the surname. I'm inclined to see this place that likely doesn't have enough coverage for a stand-alone article, but one that would warrant discussion in a future article on the Kentucky River Coal Company. Between all of this and the topographic maps, there's a fair chance that the actually community that was historically here and what A. B. is seeing evidence of is actually Hiner/Hiener/Heiner. Hog Farm _Talk 23:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Hodge 1918, p. 175 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHodge1918 (help) has a Haddix mine here at the Lost Creek Road Fork of the Trace Fork of the Lotts Creek Fork of the North Fork of the Kentucky River and Lotts Creek (Perry, Kentucky) is how Rennick 2000 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRennick2000 (help) systematizes this too, including both Whitsett and Heiner in one whole. This is how I would systematize both this and the GNIS mess substub at Hiner, Kentucky. There's probably not enough to break out the Lost Creek Road Fork out as a sub-article, but there's definitely enough from both Rennick and Hodge for Lotts Creek (Perry, Kentucky).
    - Hodge, James Michael (1918). "Coals of the North Fork of Kentucky River in Perry and Portions of Breathitt and Knott Counties". Reports of the Kentucky Geological Survey 1912–1918. 4. Frankfort, Kentucky. 3. (Coals of the North Fork of Kentucky River in Perry and Portions of Breathitt and Knott Counties at the Internet Archive)
    - Rennick, Robert M. (2000). "Perry County — Post Offices". County Histories of Kentucky. Morehead State University (273).((cite journal)): CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
  - Uncle G (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comment There is some sort of problem here. The coordinates of Hiner and Whitsett are barely different. Not sure what the best resolution is, given that we can only infer that the mine was here. Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- So, from Rennick's Perry Co. post offices guide, the Pioneer Coal Company [...] opened a mine and established a camp they called Heiner. By October 18, 1918, when Zach Grass started the Heiner post office, this vicinity had also become the northern terminus of the three mile long Danger Fork Spur of the L&N. A village just above the post office was then called Whitsett. On November 22, 1927, the post office and station became Pioneer. But by 1936 and until the post office closed in 1944, the community it served had again become Heiner. Based on the sum total of everything I've read for this topic, I'm really thinking that between Heiner/Hiner and Whitsett, we really only have one actual community. Hog Farm _Talk 23:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was wrong. There's enough for Lotts Creek (Perry, Kentucky) without even getting to this, so this article gets used for its tributary Trace Fork, where Heiner, Whitsett, and even Bulan all are. I am sure that Hog Farm will come along later to mix in all of the above stuff. Uncle G (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, obviously: it's a place with a documented human history. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The current state of the article shows several settlements (including Whitsett) that appear to meat WP:GEOLAND and sufficient sources to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:13, 26 November 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. ✗plicit 02:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liberland Amateur Radio Association[edit]

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

Obvious GNG failure. All sources are self sources, not a single hit otherwise on Google. Fermiboson (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Fermiboson (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Europe, Croatia, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added more external sources now. I mean other pages about amateur radio organisations have less scrutiny but since it is Liberland based than all odds are against you. Well LARA organisation has already 64 members from all over the world. See: https://lara.ll.land/callbook-list/ To countercheck the claims about membership you can check QRZ.com where many LARA members included and mentioned their membership in their page (also 1L callsigns). Organisation already operates for 7 years.

It's non-profit and non-political organisation meant to gather radioamateurs from all parts of the world, and such it will stay as such. But you be the judge... DelphiColor (talk) 09:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source that you added is WP:BLOG and hence not suitable for determining notability. Nobody here has a negative opinion of (or, indeed, cares a single iota about) Liberland, see also WP:WAX. You are entirely free to scrutinise the other amateur radio organisations yourself if you wish, or nominate them for deletion if you have read through the notability guidelines I mentioned on my talk and genuinely think they do not meet them. Fermiboson (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have copyedited this article to improve readability, accuracy and compliance with Wikipedia quality standards. I also added some relevant details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaumeroy (talk • contribs) 14:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. The organisation does not have the authority to issue ham radio licences and there is no "1L" prefix. The article does not assert notability nor does it cite any reliable, independent sources. Flip Format (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The organisation's legitimacy and non-membership in the ITU are political considerations that should not preclude notability and inclusion on Wikipedia. Guillaumeroy (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agree. Not all organizations need to be connected to centralized UN organizations, as also all countries doesn't need to be members of UN to be considered countries. In fact there are plenty of examples in history using non-ITU allocated prefixes and some of them are still using them (S0, 1A, 1SL, etc. ) See non-ITU callsigns.

I agree it is unusual one, but nonetheless it is as significant as any other organizations in their respective territories. And I don't know why it wouldn't deserve its own article. DelphiColor (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: No hits in Gnews, which seems understandable... An amateur radio association from a non-recognized "nation" we'll call it. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regular Gsearch is primary sourcing, their own website, then social media, then non-RS sites, so nothing for notability found there either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge (possibly), the amount of information and notability is too small for this to stand as a separate article, but it could be mentioned in the main article if a good third-party source can be found. - Anonimski (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would support this idea. Maybe not with main Liberland article as it is too general but under article about organisations based in Liberland. DelphiColor (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing my vote to delete. I had a try at finding sources that are compatible with what's normally accepted on Wikipedia, but couldn't find anything. The current source coverage isn't even good enough for the main Liberland article, because it's self-published statements, and some blog texts. - Anonimski (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as entirely failing to meet Wikipedeia notability standards. But before doing so we should probably investigate who was responsible for the claim in the lede (now removed) that this 'association' is "based in the Free Republic of Liberland", given that this claim is an obvious, blatant, falsehood. The territory claimed by the so-called 'Free Republic' is entirely uninhabited, as anyone even remotely familiar with the topic will be aware. Utter garbage... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to defend the article if it's notable or not, but I would just like to inform that the statement that this land is uninhabited is false. Liberland settlers are constantly present there since 6th of august this year. Many independent sources can confirm that, as many journalist crews from different countries visited the area after august and interviewed settlers living there. So I wouldn't consider it falsehood.

As for notability, well maybe it doesn't meet the standard for global English speaking community, as Liberland community is considerably smaller. But does present significant enough of organisation inside Liberland which is mostly English speaking community as many Liberland sources covered it. But anyway, if it doesn't meet the standards, well I guess it would then have to be part of some other bigger article, like Liberland organisations, as there are many of them. For example Liberland chess club that consists of over 10000 people. But that is probably on Wikipedia community to decide. DelphiColor (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please provide independent reliable sources for your claim that the disputed territory has had "settlers... constantly present there since 6th of august". Good luck with that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I can provide you links of many journalist articles.

There is also one historian documenting every week of events and life in Liberland, but if you consider this source reliable or not, you will have to decide on your own. Source: https://liberland.one/blog/ (documented every week with photos and videos)

But it's like proving people still live on Pitcairn island, since it's so isolated they don't get much foreign media so the only source they are still there is if they make their own publications. In case of Liberland it is not so isolated, but media come by when they wish and if something significant is happening. And most of minor events are self documented.

News about Liberland settlement:

23. October 2023: https://www.index.hr/magazin/clanak/proveli-smo-dan-sa-stanovnicima-liberlanda-zelimo-imati-slobodnu-drzavu/2506543.aspx

25. September 2023: https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/hrvatska-policija-upala-u-liberland-samoproglaseni-predsjednik-vrijedjali-su-nas/2498405.aspx

23. September 2023: https://total-croatia-news.com/news/politics/croatian-police-liberland/

10. September 2023: https://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/dnevnik-nove-tv-posjetio-je-liberland-samoproglasenu-drzavu---801368.html

30. August 2023: https://cnn.iprima.cz/komari-umorna-prace-potize-s-policii-a-velke-sny-jak-vypada-liberland-osm-let-od-vzniku-410529

26. August 2023: https://total-croatia-news.com/news/travel/visiting-liberland/

20. August 2023 https://www.telegraf.rs/vesti/jugosfera/3734102-ekipa-telegrafa-uplovila-u-liberland-s-pecatom-nove-drzave-od-avanture-u-dzungli-do-ozbiljne-svetske-price

This is some of them. DelphiColor (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frankly, your suggestion that the 'historian' blog you cite is of any relevance here can only be indicative of your lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy. I don't have to decide 'on my own'. Even ignoring general Wikipedia policy on the non-reliability of blogs, a clearly-partisan website with an entire page entitled 'Help the Settlers' is absolutely not the independent sourcing I asked for. The website is revealing in one manner relevant to this discussion however: it makes explicit what has already been quite obvious to those watching Wikipedia 'Liberland' content for some time. Specifically, the blog page you cite states the following: Proving Liberland occupation is already useful now, eg concerning the informations published on Wikipedia. A clear and unambiguous admission that Liberland's publicity machine is actively seeking to manipulate article content. Not news of course, given the WP:CoI violations, socking, partisan spin, and outright misrepresentation of sources we have seen in the past, but nice to see it confirmed in writing from the participants.

As for the remainder of the sources you cite, you need to note that first of all, statements made by Liberland supporters, regardless of where they are published, are not reliable sources for said supporters being 'settlers'. Interviews are useless as sources in this regard - they are not independent. And I'm not sure what you are attempting to prove by citing articles documenting the actions of the Croatian police: the only thing that article demonstrated is that earlier claims by Liberland supporters that Croat authorities had given tacit approval to their activities were false. And I'm not even going to bother looking at articles dating back to August, since they cannot possibly support your claim that there has been any sort of continuous presence in the area 'since 6th of august this year', much less that those there are 'settlers' - which is to say individuals who have taken up permanent residence. Proof of publicity stunts staged for the media is not proof of permanent settlement, and nor is citation of Liberland supporters self-descriptions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to point out there are non gov sources inside Liberland and it's not all governametal propaganda. There are people out there that do their own thing. Also I wanted to point out, that despites actions of Croatian forestry company settlement continued to this day.

Anyway not to get too off topic. I would like ask you for an advice how to document things in this case independently and objectively, if major interest group who produce reports is the supporters who live there and are envolved in the project, therefore can be biased.

How to proof the truth of reality, if it interests mainly one closed group of people?

(If we go a bit wider and philosophical, how to proof people actually live on earth to an alien who has just met one us, he doesn't have to believe us as we can be biased.)

Anyway just asking for advice how to objectively document things and events that would meet Wikipedia standard, if you know the topic as you are somewhat involved in it and monitor it closely but the same thing make you less independent source as you can be biased. 194.165.116.33 (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read the following: WP:RS and WP:NPOV: this isn't a discussion about philosophy, and the only question is as to whether Wikipedia policies are being adhered to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: My search came up the same as Oaktree b. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:56, 24 November 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. ✗plicit 00:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angsana Johor Bahru Mall[edit]

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

The page seemed to fail SIGCOV. Only 3 references: first was the archive of mall owner's page, the other two about the buses that pass the center did not even show as such. No reliable secondary referencing on the page. Tagged for notability concerns for almost 1 year. Slothades (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I could not find evidence of substantial coverage either. It does not look notable in any case to warrant a stand-alone page. The absence of secondary sourcing says it all. Corncaker (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. I dug out only 1 source: an interview, and not much else in WP:RS, just not enough coverage to justify against WP:GNG. Freedomfryff (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I agree, there is insufficient coverage of this shopping centre to meet the general notability guideline. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:39, 30 November 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. Despite the extra 7 days, no further arguments regarding a potential rename have been advanced. Daniel (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abdullahi Boos Ahmed[edit]

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

This article fails on notability per WP:BIO. At this point, I have done extensive searching of the minister's name beyond what is expected in WP:BEFORE, and have not found a single source supporting their notability (or even their existence, for that matter). In addition, the one source on the article only contains a passing mention of the minister among a list of other names. This directly goes against the notion of presumed notability as the subject is not significantly covered in multiple published sources, yet it has been claimed that the article should still be kept per WP:POLITICIAN. However, that policy specifically states that the person being a minister is a "secondary criterion" to notability, and I have found no evidence thus far supporting that the subject of this article is notable to begin with. Leafy46 (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Somalia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Cabinet ministers pass WP:NPOL, so notability is without question. The real question is whether he surpasses WP:NOPAGE. The trouble with Somali biographies is that names can be so varied, and the country has very little internet access so there aren't many online news websites. Curbon7 (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was able to find some sources using the alternative spelling Abdalla Bos Ahmed. He seems to have also been minister of education beginning in 2008 ([63]). He also appears to have been seriously injured in a terrorist attack in 2016 ([64][65]). Curbon7 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For some reason, there appears to be confusion between this subject and Mohamed Abdi Mohamed, such as in the 2011 Statesman's Yearbook, which lists Abdullahi Boos Ahmed as Minister of Defence for the period when Mohamed Abdi Mohamed held the office. His names in Somali seem to be Cabdalla Bos Axmed and Cabdullaahi Boos Axmed, but I was not able to find much with either name. Sources likely to be offline, though I'm not entirely confident. Curbon7 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for looking into this! I'm still not entirely convinced that the biography should be a standalone page, but it is definitely fair to argue that many of the sources are likely offline. If nothing else, I'd say that a page move and redirects are probably in order given that the current title of the page seems to be a non-standard Anglicization of a Somali name. Leafy46 (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:POLITICIAN, which provides for a presumption of notability for cabinet ministers. To my knowledge, a person holding a cabinet-level position has never been deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it looks like this is a probably Keep but I thought I'd relist so that editors could consider a possible rename. Those discussions typically happen after an AFD closure but I think if this discussion is closed, editors will quickly move on to other discussions and this article will likely be forgotten. So, allow me delay this closure to solicit more opinions on this possible article page move.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Clearly passes NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 06:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: civil servant, passes WP:POLITICIAN. ---Tumbuka Arch (talk) 09:59, 30 November 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. ✗plicit 00:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mark Allen Gbalazeh[edit]

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

Not sure how this has survived almost 3 months in mainspace. There is literally nothing online. It's just a random person. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. There are a couple mentions in the Liberian Observer but nothing approaching SIGCOV for BASIC. Note it's only been in mainspace for a bit over a week. It began as a professional profile. Efforts of editors have turned it into a better article but I still can't imagine now notability would be met here. —siro χ o 01:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and Africa. Skynxnex (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete no RS coverage. Skynxnex (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Delete couldn't agree more with what's already been written. Has anyone considered that the creating editor could have made a page about himself? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was made by the individual, the photo is uploaded by Markcino, who also created the article. Photo says it's a photo of "me" in uniform. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lol. So what is even the question? Delete, salt and block. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: So he's a student in medicine? Founder of xyz company doesn't help notability. There is no coverage, this is PROMO. Could have been speedied I think. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 23 November 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. ✗plicit 00:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inocentrus[edit]

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

This genus is only described in thesis,[66] and this is not considered as valid taxa. (See [67]) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete following OP. The only available instance of the thesis in question appears to be fragmentary, so it's hard to figure out what exactly is presented there, but the assertion of [68] that there exists no valid description seems to be borne out by the paucity of mentions anywhere else. There are a couple publications by one author from the 90s that refer to the species [69][70], but that's it. On balance of available material, this taxon does not seem to have a solid enough background for an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I got full PDF of that thesis, and it describes about this taxa well but still it is invalid, same situation as "Styginetta" etc. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add: This record also indicates a doubtful status. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, not formally published so it doesn't meet the presumption underlying WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Plantdrew (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 23 November 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 List of Arkansas state agencies#Department of Commerce. ✗plicit 00:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arkansas Department of Aeronautics[edit]

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

This page only has 1 reference. I argue that this page is not notable enough. Therefore, I think it should be merged into the "Government and Military" section of "Aviation in Arkansas". A.FLOCK (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. 18:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. 18:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to List of Arkansas state agencies#Department of Commerce for an ATD. Nate • (chatter)
Redirect as per suggestion above. It's barren article anyway.Cortador (talk) 07:00, 23 November 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.