< September 29	October 01 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 XIII (comics). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XX (organization)[edit]

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

Initiating AFD per IP user's request: Non-notable fictional organization; could not find any SIGCOV. 2605:B40:1303:900:CAD:8F6F:33AA:50BF (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to XIII (comics) as WP:ATD-M —siro χ o 02:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to XIII (comics). No referenced content, fails GNG. But redirects are WP:CHEAP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as aboveTheLongTone (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Not enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Expansion can take place at the target, through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to XIII (comics).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Shakya[edit]

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

Indian "model, choreographer and social media influencer", signally fails WP:GNG - was deeply tempted to go G11 with this. Hair color Black, eye color Brown, apparently... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the subject is notable as many secondary source have covered him. India Today, The Telegraph, Zee News, ABP News are all national level media houses of India. Also, infobox for the model provides the parameters like eye colour and height etc. Also, we have similar articles on model on Wikipedia for years. Please see, he is a winner of India's national level beauty pageant title. Similar articles are here:- Vishnu Raj Menon, Jitesh Singh Deo etc. There are 10 good quality source, covering the subject, and there are many articles on Wikipedia with 2-3 source. PS: All source talks about the subject, no passing mention.-Admantine123 (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Mister India icon [1] is India's National level beauty pageant title.-Admantine123 (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly fails in WP:GNG nd no any secondery reliable source. only PR stuff Worldiswide (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jitesh Singh Deo exist on Wikipedia even with less number of sources. The source in this article is discussing about the subject, not passing mention. 8 sources (all are WP: SECONDARY) that too of national level media houses are enough for fulfilling WP:GNG.-Admantine123 (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can also nominate that one for deletion, it also appears as non-notable as this person. Thank you for pointing it out. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it, I don't think it's notable, with the sourcing available at least. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. he received awards that seem quite significant, and significant coverage in independent sources (Telangana Today, Lokmat) (on the page) so that he can be considered notable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~, at present the sources cover the subject in-depth and seven such sources are enough for WP:GNG. Also, the subject is a title holder and many articles on such one time award holders exists on Wikipedia. I have already listed similar articles with much less sources existing comfortably on wiki.-Admantine123 (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete awards are not inherently notable, sourced to PR/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~, I am sure that it has enough sources to be included in Wikipedia as it fulfills WP:GNG. Considering that several one time title receiver article with much less source exist on Wiki.-Admantine123 (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You already voted twice before!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination itself was wrong. That's why it is taking time. Several articles of one time award winners with less coverage in news sources exist on Wikipedia (example: Jitesh Singh Deo). It will be good if you withdraw this nomination. Admantine123 (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admantine123, I'm striking your duplicate votes, you can only cast one "vote". Please abide by this practice in AFD deletion discussions. Everyone else does. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok Admantine123 (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: enough coverage and notable FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He have won National level award and the article fulfills the Wikipedia Criteria. TheProEditor11 (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- some serious WP:BLUD is going on here by Admantine123. Voting “strong keep/speedy keep” three times and then replying to everyone who votes delete is seriously disruptive to the AfD process. GraziePrego (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Telegraph article is sponsored content, so a no-no. The rest appears as fluffy as it. Winning a Josh TRENDSETTER award is not notable, and I'm not even sure what that is to be honest. This is PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is typical of the language: Vikas Shakya - A new dazzle in the realm of buzz world [[2]] flowery language, not using correct English sentences, staff writer... Very much PR fluff. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Every references on the page with the exception of the 1st (which is a bio) fails WP:NEWSORGINDIA. These are PR pieces and do not count towards notability. I would welcome anyone pointing out some references that do not fall under NEWSORGINDIA and I would be happy to review and possibly change my vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost every sources are sponsored content. Fails the notability criteria.111.92.123.60 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. Clearly promotional. BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 16:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria at the 2011 Arab Games[edit]

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

No significant coverage focused on Algeria. Unnotable. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Algeria. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lane v. Holder[edit]

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

Not notable: no significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. This was a gun/Second Amendment lawsuit in the U.S., but it never went anywhere; it was dismissed for lack of legal standing, so it was never adjudicated on the merits. It's not a significant or noteworthy precedent, and no coverage beyond routine. Neutrality^talk 22:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable, fails WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Sal2100 (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. No indication that this has been widely cited by other cases, studied in law school textbooks, or meets any other criteria we might employ to determine notability of legal cases. BD2412 T 04:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RevPro Uprising 2022[edit]

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

Non-notable event, cited only to wrestling websites and stats pages. I can't find any significant journalistic news coverage about the event Sionk (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RevPro Uprising 2021[edit]

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

Non-notable event, cited only to wrestling websites/stats pages. I can't find any significant journalistic news coverage about the event Sionk (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RevPro Uprising 2016[edit]

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

Non-notable event, cited only to a wrestling website. I can't find any significant journalistic news coverage about the event Sionk (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Porcelain (band)[edit]

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

Article does not indicate how this band is notable per WP:NBAND. It says that they have opened for notable artists, but that is not one of the criteria. There is no indication that their albums have charted, and no significant discussion of them in reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 21:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Denmark. ... discospinster _talk 21:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are examples of music reviews from main music magisines so I believe that is a clear evidence that the band is notable. Jesper Urban (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a Peter Porcelain band, nothing for this band, that I can find. Sourcing is all primary and streaming sites. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, there is a Keep here so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reads like a fandom article. Fails GNG and NBAND. Sources in article are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth and BEFORE found nothing. // Timothy :: talk 16:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Silvanus Bevan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silvanus Bevan (1661–1725)[edit]

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

Not seeing anything that satisfies WP:BIO. The main source claims the family is notable, but that doesn't help this person.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Clarityfiend (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect to Allen & Hanburys found a journal article (accessible on Wikipedia Library) dedicated to the coverage of Silvanus Bevan (Morris, John S. “Silvanus Bevan the ‘Quaker FRS’ (1691-1765) Apothecary with a Note on His Contribution to the Founding of the Pharmaceutical Company Allen and Hanbury.” Journal of Medical Biography, vol. 19, no. 1, Feb. 2011, pp. 2–4. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1258/jmb.2010.010021.) Apparently the book "Through A City Archway: The Story Of Allen And Hanburys, 1715-1954" by Desmond Chapman-Huston and Ernest C. Cripps also covers the full history of the Allen and Hanbury company, and to a certain degree covers Silvanus Bevan, but I don't have any access to it, so I don't know to what degree Silvanus Bevan is covered. There's also many mentions of him in JSTOR, although I haven't analyzed every single article where his name is mentioned, so I don't know how notable the coverage is. It seems like he was the founder of the company Allen & Hanburys, so perhaps he could be redirected there if the coverage about Silvanus Bevan is not deemed notable or in-depth enough.Jaguarnik (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I made an error, the apothecary Silvanus Bevan is not the one nominated for deletion, rather his father, also Silvanus was. My mistake. There is no coverage I found of his father. I think delete is an okay option.Jaguarnik (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant verifiable information from both into Silvanus Bevan as WP:ATD-M. —siro χ o 05:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvanus_Bevan 1661-1725 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Bevan_(apothecary) and as siro χ o suggests merge relevant content to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvanus_Bevan 1691-1765Hmee2 (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete is very rarely done, so I'm guessing this is meant to be a merge !vote (which implies that the original pages will be blanked and redirected). —siro χ o 23:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation, and yes. Hmee2 (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Silvanus Bevan.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only properly sourced content, support per above. // Timothy :: talk 17:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC) 16:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 07:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pace Center for Girls[edit]

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

Notability is not clear. Bedivere (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Florida. Bedivere (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could've been softdeleted though. Bedivere (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another closer might chose to do that. But I don't like to delete an article based on one editor's opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Bedivere (talk) 06:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple newspaper articles are already present as references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of which goes in detail into the center. Bedivere (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think any WP:BEFORE was performed. A quick look at Google Scholar will show that their are many, many publications that talk in-depth about the orginization. Of the references in the article: PNJ and JJIE has significant coverage about the organization. And a search on google news will show many, many more. (Note, I am the creator of the article). -- Mike 🗩 14:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I went to Proquest via the wikipedia library, and found a lot of information. Some of it, like this is definitely significant coverage. So is this journal article. There are more. Pick your notability guideline, this meets it. I guess WP:NCORP is probably the right one, maybe WP:NSCHOOL? In any case, I would say the notability is clear, no matter how you classify the article. Jacona (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have sufficient references for support. - Indefensible (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Sanchez[edit]

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

WP:SINGLEEVENT and of little encyclopedic value. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New York. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Alread PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks promotional. This article does not and will not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Delete this article. Purely a mystery that how this article even moved from AfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheProEditor11 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep SINGLEEVENT notwithstanding, there's a fair amount of references there. I think expansion/cleanup rather than deletion is the best course for now. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. BLP1E, other than the incident I don't see how anything in this BLP meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLP1E.

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hariyo Party[edit]

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

I have draftified this article earlier because it had no sources. It was recreated again without sources. A WP:Before search produced nothing. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if and when it's sourced properly. Political parties can have articles that show passage of WP:ORGDEPTH through WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them in real media, but are in no way "inherently" notable enough to get automatic inclusion freebies without adequate sourcing — and that goes triple for newly-founded political parties that don't even have any legislative representation in the relevant legislature at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've struggled to find any sourcing in English or Nepali to even confirm the party's existence. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. This certainly could also justifiably be a "no consensus", but I note that the arguments for "keep" primarily discuss a broader series that this game is part of, rather than just the game itself. Maybe an article about the series could be viable, but I don't see strong arguments that one about this individual game is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crush Crush[edit]

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

I couldn't find a single article from a reliable source besides the two interviews cited in the page. QuietCicada (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It got a review from Softpedia and PCGamer. Still, this is considered pretty weak and the other articles are mostly interview. To me it doesn't get over the notability bar, although I could understand people !voting either way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Softpedia review is a good find, but the PCGamer one is just two paragraphs in a longer list. QuietCicada (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I was actually working on a rewrite of this article and was able to find some more sources, but admittedly the coverage is pretty slim. Crush Crush has a bunch of spinoffs and crossovers, and if you look at the whole "series" there's probably enough coverage to justify an article, but it could go either way. Guess I'll wait and see how this AFD goes before I spend any more time on the rewrite. CurlyWi (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Series articles require coverage on the series as a whole, simply putting together a bunch of non-notable games would still not make it pass notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles like this one and this one do discuss the overall series. Hardcore Gamer covered it, but it's a 1 paragraph nothing article. Crunchyroll News has an article on the game, but I can't find any discussions evaluating them as a source, so your mileage may vary. Jay is Games did a review but they're listed as a situational source that doesn't demonstrate notability, so that doesn't help us. RPGfan did another article on the spinoffs, so that's only helpful if it's a series article. I dunno, I think it could go either way. There's probably enough sources to scrape together a half decent article, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if it got deleted either. CurlyWi (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we're talking about a bunch of trivial mentions here, you can't somehow combine them to make significant coverage. And so far, the only secondary, non-primary SIGCOV I've seen are two short review. This does not pass GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I'm with CurlyWi on this one... There does appear to be barely enough significant coverage to scrape together an article Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It's in a weird case of being slightly known about, but not really notable or enough said about it to achieve notability. I just don't think it's there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There is a general, though not unanimous, consensus that this is not in itself a viable article subject. There is disagreement over whether an appropriate merge target exists, but if that can be agreed on, let me know and I will certainly be willing to facilitate a merge at that point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al-ʿArabiyya (journal)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be particularly significant (WP:JOURNALCRIT), nor does it have in-depth coverage (mostly just routine listings or mirrors of this arricle). Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Academic journals. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hard to consider the journal of a redlinked institution should itself be a bluelink, right? But this journal, published by the Georgetown University Press, is now in its 47th Year (from 1967-1974 it was published as Al Nashra) and therefore already passes criterion 3 of WP:JOURNALCRIT, "The journal is historically important in its subject area." Then consider its distribution by Project Muse, "Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources", and you'll note I bolded 'essential' there. I note that articles by scholars in the journal get pretty widely cited, which deals with Criteria 2. I can't speak for C1 - but do note that a journal should pass any of the three. Also, as an English language journal focused on a discipline that deserves a great deal more focus in the West than it gets, it's a relatively rare beast - and therefore definitely worth a keep from me!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't entirely agree with your assessment that being nearly 50 years old translates to historical importance. Anyone could start a minor village newspaper, then hand down ownership to their child(ren), making it probably over 50 years old (if not more), but that wouldn't make the newspaper notable. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to keep this. See the arguments I made in WP:SJ.—S Marshall T/C 16:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:JOURNALCRIT is an essay that attempts to override GNG with inherent notability criteria that do not predict NPOV SIGCOV. Per WP:N, it does not carry weight at AfD. If we do not have independent sources providing direct discussion of the journal, then all we have is a database entry sourced to what the journal says about itself.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Having existed for 50 years does indeed not mean that something has an "historical purpose", nor are the numbers of citations very impressive, but citation levels are almost always low in the Humanities. However, this is the official journal of a major academic society in this field. Unfortunately, the association has no article, so we cannot merge there. It is abstracted and indexed in several databases, but apart from Scopus, none are highly selective. Scopus indicates 2019-2021 as coverage years, but does not say that coverage is discontinued, I think this is just reflects the fact that the 2022 and 2023 volumes are a double issue that is not published yet (or was published very recently). So while I don't think that JOURNALCRIT #2 or #3 are met, I think this squeezes by on #1. Also: WP:HEY. --Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and per User:JoelleJay there's no good redirect target here. If the journal is "historically important", I would expect to see that reflected in reliable sources, even as passing mentions. More modern summaries in other (independent) journals like this one that describe the journal and its impact would lead me to vote Keep, although I wasn't able to find anything obvious. (Other sources: not independent but useful context; couldn't access this, but may contain relevant coverage) Suriname0 (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Georgetown University Press. - Indefensible (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. As this is primarily due to low participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. There is also no consensus as to whether socks make a good breakfast. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Fragrance[edit]

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

YouTube videos, deprecated sources, blogging sites. Show me a secondary source and not only will I change my position that this so-called entrepreneur fails WP:GNG I will eat my own socks live on YouTube. Expressive101 (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GQ did a piece on him just a few months ago. Must be somewhat notable: https://www.gq.com/story/jeremy-fragrance-tiktok-interview Griseo veritas (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Interviews aren't secondary sources, they're primary sources, sorry.Expressive101 (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC) (Your deletion nominaion is considered your Delete vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Sourcing used in the article is not proving helpful, but this individual seems to have had a TV show on German Tv [3], so they might meet notability. Wee bit of coverage here: [4] Oaktree b (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Several articles in Swiss German sources, he was on a version of Big Brother [5]. This seems helpful [6]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's considered a (very) minor celebrity in Germany. Although I'm personally not a fan, I'd argue that he is a person of public interest and meets the notability criteria. Kitzing (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there seems to be enough coverage and profiles of the subject to indicate notability. - Indefensible (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arepera Socialista[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NORG. Most of the current coverage in the article is due to a WikiLeak cable description: "Socialism's Tangible -- and Tasty -- Benefits" and the chain has been closed for years, with no long lasting impact. NoonIcarus (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Politics, Business, and Venezuela. NoonIcarus (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have received some decent coverage such as https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/12/10/chavezs-socialist-sandwich-emporium/, https://www.elciudadano.com/economia/la-arepera-socialista-venezolana/04/13/, https://www.proquest.com/docview/1082428344/2183CA7C85174C77PQ/17, etc. which meets WP:GNG. - Indefensible (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a quick note: once again, Foreign Policy's article is about the WikiLeaks cable, and the ProQuest reference seems to be a case of WP:NOTNEWS and a passing mention: "Employees who arrived late will be sanctioned". --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth 2024[edit]

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

The article is WP:TOO SOON. There are no reliable sources to verify informations about the event. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Beauty pageants, and Fashion. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said Draftify but WP:G13 would be the case alas. So, Delete as this is WP:CRYSTAL case since the 2023 version is yet to happen. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no draft Wait for the 2023 event to end and most of the pageants to award their crowns in 2024. Nate • (chatter) 23:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Indefensible (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying would actually be fine in my opinion, excluding based on WP:G13 is kind of WP:CRYSTAL itself, but voting to support consensus here. Very similar case to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Universe_2024. - Indefensible (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify - switching from delete, I agree G13 should not be assumed in advance. - Indefensible (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - There's absolutely no reason a WP:ATD-I case can't be made. We can't WP:G13 before a draft has ever even been tried at Draft:Miss Earth 2024. Even if it does go unattended and gets a G13 deletion, that can be WP:REFUNDED when the time comes, or someone can just start over if they see fit. That doesn't preclude sending this to draft right now. -2pou (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This subject fails WP:GNG and at least for the moment is WP:TOOSOON due to a lack of independent, secondary coverage regarding what exactly happened. User:Let'srun 02:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Binkley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm failing to see strong enough notability here. Nothing much new seems to be added since the last deletion. He had a few outlier polls where he had surprise single-digit support (unclear whether it was genuine support for him). That seems to be the only thing that inspired the re-creation of this article.

Replace with redirect to the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries page. SecretName101 (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Christianity, and United States of America. SecretName101 (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: substantial coverage in many reliable sources. Deletion rationale seems to be WP:IDONTKNOWIT. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti Routine campaign coverage is not sufficient REGARDLESS of how reliable the publisher is. The MEAT of the coverage has to establish notability, not just the mere fact that an article was published about them. SecretName101 (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously fulfilled. The earlier version of this article sourced exclusively from coverage of the announcement, justifying the first AfD's deletion outcome. Since then, coverage of his campaign has appeared repeatedly in RS media with specific emphasis placed on him and his candidacy. See the cited Globe Gazette and the Des Moines Register pieces from August that are specifically about him. Combined with more recent passing references in the national press—such as the referenced ABC News article from August—clearly indicate sustained notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, routine campaign coverage does not amount to notability. The MEAT of what news articles establish about the subject must. In fact, a lot of the articles within this page are curiosity pieces, with some loudly taking the tone "who the heck is Ryan Binkley?" (evidencing that he is not of much –if any– note. SecretName101 (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sustained, extensive RS coverage in curiosity pieces are enough to satisfy GNG; see gun-powered mousetrap. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In an article about an inanimate object, perhaps. Not in a WP:BLP of a person, which can easily shade into self-promotional advocacy if we're not vigilant. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state) and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in 2024 if he wins the election. People do not get articles just for declaring their candidacies in future elections per se, and the existence of the merely expected campaign coverage is not sufficient to hand them a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL: unelected candidates get articles only if either (a) you can establish that they were already notable enough for articles for some other reason independently of being a candidate, or (b) you can establish that their candidacy is such a special case, of uniquely greater importance than everybody else's candidacies, that it would pass the ten year test for enduring importance. That is, the question isn't "is his name present in the news cycle today?" — it's "if he loses the election and then never accomplishes another more notable thing again for the rest of his life, so that the candidacy itself represents his peak notability claim for all time, then will people still be looking for information about it in 2033 and 2043 and 2053?", and nothing here demonstrably passes the latter test. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MILL gives a standard for An ordinary political rally, candidacy for office, candidate announcement, or press conference. It's an unclear standard: a presidential candidacy with both sustained national and local coverage specifically regarding the candidate and their positions—particularly an individual who has served in roles that could lend themselves to notability—is not the equivalent of a couple newspaper articles on a mayoral candidate who didn't receive any support beyond his mom and a neighbor. It is fuzzy, but we have good examples of how to apply GNG here. For example, the curious case of Deez Nuts was an unserious presidential candidacy with sustained national and local coverage. Will someone come back to Deez Nuts in 2036? Who knows—so we lean on GNG, not our own guesswork, to determine notability. We can build on this with WP:BASIC: 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. In this case, we have plenty of SIGCOV in RSs. I could also break out the chart thingy... ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every candidate in every election everywhere always receives enough campaign coverage to at least attempt the argument that GNG had exempted them from NPOL's ban on unelected candidates — which means that if "campaign coverage exempts a candidate from NPOL" were actually how it worked, then every candidate in every election everywhere would always get that exemption, and NPOL itself would never apply to anybody at all anymore. So the existence of campaign coverage isn't an automatic GNG pass in and of itself — the test hinges on whether there's a compelling reason to treat Candidate X's campaign coverage as more significant than Candidate Y's campaign coverage and Candidate Z's campaign coverage. Bearcat (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as NPOL "ban" on unelected candidates. The guideline, which is subordinate to GNG, simple allows for some elected officials to gain "presumed notability". That's it. Djflem (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL "an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." Binkley has done nothing of note prior to his run for president, and hasn't appeared once in any reputable news report prior to his announcement. Scu ba (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To complete the quote: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Says nothing at all about prior to anything or in comparison to anything else, that's just made-up non-policy/non-guideline stuff. Djflem (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. per WP:NPOL "an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability.". I don't see WP:IS/NOPOV WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV, addressing the suject directly and indepth. WP:BLP has strict sourcing requirements. No prejudice against recreation with WP:IS WP:RS post-election sources whihc should have WP:SIGCOV if they win the election. // Timothy :: talk 19:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Shivaji#Siege of Panhala. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kolhapur[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No sources in article, very very few hits on google scholar. I think this may be WP:citogenesis, so please ensure any sources you find pre-date 2006, the original publication date of this article. The battle itself may have happened (just not as "Battle of Kolhapur"), in which case we could write about it on Battles involving the Maratha Empire, provided, again, that we can find pre-2006 sources. asilvering (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, and Maharashtra. asilvering (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also check the sources that the editors will use in future. Because many sources used Wikipedia as a reference such as 'Maratha generals and their personalities'. Ajayraj890 (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source (PhD Dissertation) that doesn't seem to mention this, despite covering the period. I may have missed something tho so I'm still not sure. [7]. —siro χ o 03:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was Speedy Keep.

Previous discussions: 2015-04 (closed as ✓ Speedy Keep)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sarkar, Jadunath (1920). Shivaji and his times. London ; New York : Longmans, Green. pp. 262–263. mentions fighting between Shivaji and the combined forces of Rustam Zaman and Fazl Khan near Panhala in late 1659 or early 1660, which is consistent with the article, although it does not corroborate the article's details regarding force compositions or tactics.

Sardesai Govind Sakharam (1946). New History Of The Marathas Vol-i 1600-1707 (1946). B. G. Dhawale, Bombay. p. 131. has similar details and gives the date (28 December 1659) that's in the article.

Jfire (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the recently cited source https://archive.org/details/ShivajiSouvenir

Page no 164 does not mention a battle at Kolhapur in 28th December 1629. It is removed now. Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfire, how this sources can be used? These sources doesn't provide enough context as it is shown in the article. The date is missing, the details of infobox is missing and what makes it more questionable is, the infobox had 'strength' parameter with some random numbers recently. From where did those information came? I don't think this article should be in mainspace since the details about this event is very less in reliable sources. Also I remind you that to not cite sources which was published after the creation of the article. Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these sources are many decades before the creation of the article, but obviously they don't corroborate the details regarding force compositions or tactics. Unless there are reliable sources for those, I believe the best course of action is to merge and redirect to Shivaji#Siege of Panhala as suggested by User:Jeraxmoira. Jfire (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By looking at Shivaji, I see that the Battle of Kolhapur comes under the Siege of Panhala [8]. This article can be redirected and expanded under Siege of Panhala due to lack of sources/verifiability or it can be renamed and copyedited to match the sources.Jeraxmoira (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This independent blog covers the events happened on 10 November 1659 to 28 December 1659 and others [9]. Source doesn't look like WP:CITOGEN Jeraxmoira (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shivaji#Siege of Panhala as suggested above. Not every military engagement is notable and this clearly lacks WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS, I don't see anything that can be merged due to sourcing and vague wording about details that a milhist article should have. Ping me if verifiable sources with SIGCOV are found. // Timothy :: talk 20:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aquadoodle[edit]

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

seems it was proposed for deletion in the past so my PROD is not valid

may not be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Education. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, There is only PR type articles about the product [10] is typical. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally PROD'd, so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to Pilot (pen company) and Spin Master. - Indefensible (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Indefensible: I do not think we should be merging a mess of unsourced content. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to decide between Deletion and Merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No SIGCOV to prove notability has been found. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A search will show that references exist online such as https://www.proquest.com/docview/2055576160/C889464995794866PQ/4 - Indefensible (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I would be fine with a redirect since it is a plausible search term. However, the article content has no sources, so I would prefer to not drop it into another article. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot redirect to 2 article targets. My point is the content needs to be merged to multiple places and references can be found online to source it. - Indefensible (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it turns out neither article mentions this product. What I am saying is that you should add new content about this product to the articles instead of merging content from here, since this article is in very bad condition. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding content for this subject on those articles would be a merge. - Indefensible (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you don't copy anything from this article. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There would be material copied from here such as being toy of the year, it just needs referencing. - Indefensible (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why copy it when you could just summarize it from the sources? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, a merge would have to leave a redirect behind, and where would the redirect point? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main point is to appropriately preserve the information somewhere on Wiki, not the redirect. When the article says things like it earned toy of the year, that is already largely summarized. It just needs to be packaged into the other target articles with suitable referencing, which is the merge. - Indefensible (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hanoi University of Pharmacy[edit]

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

No sources since 2013. Perhaps merge into Hanoi. Qcne (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Qcne (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Vietnam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this is the same place as Hanoi Medical University. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems okay now. Hanoi Medical University is not the same. The two institutions were split many years ago. The article could be expanded by adding text from the corresponding article in the Vietnamese Wikipedia at vi:Trường Đại học Dược Hà Nội. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we make it one article and provide the inital history & cover the splitting PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally keep state-accredited universities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Necrothesp's comment. Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hanoi Medical University[edit]

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

Relies on a single primary source. Has had maintenance tags since 2008(!). Has promotional language. Perhaps a merge into Hanoi? Qcne (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Qcne (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Medicine, and Vietnam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

same place as Hanoi University of Pharmacy PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there should be sources in Vietnamese that could be translated. - Indefensible (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for "Đại học Y Hà Nội" results in thousands and thousands of results. For example https://daibieunhandan.vn/giao-duc--y-te1/truong-dai-hoc-y-ha-noi-don-chao-1-349-tan-sinh-vien-trong-le-khai-giang-nam-hoc-moi-i344460/, https://viettimes.vn/truong-dai-hoc-y-ha-noi-khai-giang-nam-hoc-moi-trong-tam-la-chuyen-doi-so-quan-tri-hieu-qua-post170281.html, https://tuoitre.vn/diem-san-truong-dai-hoc-y-ha-noi-tu-19-23-5-diem-20230726215636475.htm. The subject is a century old and the leading medical school in Vietnam, it should easily meet on notability. - Indefensible (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally keep state-accredited universities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does not appear that an adequate WP:BEFORE was done, and while I haven't thoroughly investigated the sourcing, it's pretty inconceivable that qualifying sources do not exist. The remedy for examples of systemic bias like this is improving the articles, not AfDing them. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Article is no longer unsourced. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajonye Perpetua[edit]

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

Fails BLP, GNG and NBIO. Essentially an unsourced BLP from 2011. Single existing ref is a dead link. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with SIGCOV addressing with subject directly and in-depth. WP:BLP requires high quality sources. // Timothy :: talk 17:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has not held any role that would count as "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL, but is not properly referenced anywhere close to well enough to claim that she would pass WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still think this after the expansion, curious? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added an archived copy of the single existing ref, which lists Paperture as an office holder. TSventon (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

› 2018/01 › T.OT-Report.pdf PDF here from the South Sudan Women Empowerment Network discussing her role in a meeting, but nothing biographically on her...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article cites Gurtong, which shows she was Minister of Legal Affairs and Law Enforcement for Central Equatoria state in 2011. That means she passes WP:POLITICIAN, since South Sudan has a federal system of government. She is now an executive in the Law Society of South Sudan, and very active in campaigning for human rights and fighting gender based violence. Given the chaos in South Sudan, nice clean sources are hard to find. But Radio Miraya, run by the United Nations Mission in South Sudan, notes her activities on several of its Facebook pages, such as [11] or [12], and an image search for "Justice Ajonye" (Ajonye is her surname) shows various other sources e.g. [13], [14]. [15]. [16], [17]. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ajonye Perpetua seems to be more common than "Paperture". I'm still not seeing biographical coverage in the sources though. I do think her positions in government and work in human/gender rights seems enough to make her notable though. I was leaning towards delete because of the lack of sources I could find directly written about her under the name Ajonye Paperture. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several sources under the name "Justice Ajonye Perpetua". That she held a state government ministerial position in South Sudan. is the chair of the national law society and seemed to be active in women's right issues in the country is enough for me to pass notability, but there is still an abundance of biographical sources lacking on her, Perhaps over time they will become available. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of names seems to often be phonetic. I have also seen "Ajonye Papetus". This source uses "Ajonge Perpetuar". It gives a snippet of biographical detail about her dismissal from the President's Office and downgrading from first class judge in 2013. If she stays active I expect that sooner or later some article will include a potted bio, probably using information provided by the subject. Until then,there is enough to name some positions she has held and describe her activities. She technically qualifies under WP:POLITICIAN (as a state-level minister) ) and WP:JUDGE (as a first class judge in the national judiciary), which is good enough for a keep. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided and the situation is complicated by the variety of different spellings for this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: state government ministerial position in South Sudan. Victuallers (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Victuallers and others. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amilton Filho[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dion Frazer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolph Flowers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton Eiley[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only match reports in the Amandala newspaper are what I find for sourcing (one mention in the Salt Lake Tribune), none of which helps for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jarret Davis[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Slam Prize in harness racing[edit]

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

Tagged as unsourced for 14 years. My own searching found a single AP article picked up by the NY Times which doesn't say anything we don't already have. So it passes WP:V but not WP:N. RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The assertion that the available sourcing is too thin to support this article was not particularly refuted. Being mentioned a lot is not equivalent to being covered in depth, and the assertion that most if not all proposed reliable and independent sources are indeed such brief mentions was not convincingly shown to be incorrect. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Gokhshtein[edit]

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

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

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

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

American entrepreneur, internet and media personality, and former politician - who achieves notability under none of these roles. Not elected to office, not feted widely in media, no track record of significant entrepreneurialism and all sourced to Fox blurbs, owned media and interview. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Websites, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hits in Gnews all talk about crypto, so I suspect this is some sort of promotion. Back to the article, being a member and writer for the Forbes Council is non-notable; we don't consider it a RS, so being a writer for it would not help. Rest is non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly read the article again. It is clearly non promotional.. Corrugateboard (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It helps boost Google Search results, so does help promote it. SEO is a concern. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:HEY please check again as has been significantly updated Rescendent (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should now pass via WP:SNG on WP:BASIC notability via academic WP:SOURCETYPES Rescendent (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm new here and don't know what people say to win arguments. He's an expert in his field and I am under the impression that Wikipedia is for experts in their professions even when we don't agree with the profession or the profession doesn't align with our personal convictions. I'm saying keep Corrugateboard (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC) — Corrugateboard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
We aren't here to win, we're looking for reliable sources to use in the article, showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Crypto-crap. Though the sheer number of GHits makes searching difficult, I could not find any WP:SIGCOV about him in reliable sources after a thorough-ish search. As he did not contest the congressional primary, I'm don't think redirection there is a valid WP:ATD. Curbon7 (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Crypto-crap" is a little WP:IDONTLIKEIT?

Are multiple hits in GBooks and GScholar either for his name or analysing his twitter account 'davidgokhshtein'. So it can be highlighted that academic research has recognized David Gokhshtein's notable influence within cryptocurrency social media circles. For instance, in the study analyzing Electra's Twitter community, Gokhshtein is identified as one of the most influential actors, underscoring his recognized position within this domain. This evidence contributes towards establishing his notability, as it reflects a level of significance and impact in the cryptocurrency community, thereby warranting his inclusion on Wikipedia.

I have added additional references to the page to the books and journals he is analysed in. Rescendent (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not "for experts in their professions" per se — if all it took to get into Wikipedia was for the article to say that the person was an expert without having to have their expertise independently validated by third-party reliable source coverage independent of themselves, then everybody on earth could bypass our inclusion standards just by designating themselves an "expert" in something. So Wikipedia is for people who have the degree of reliable source coverage about them needed to pass a notability criterion. But the sourcing here is not coverage about him for the purposes of satisfying WP:GNG — it's coverage about other things which merely quotes him as a provider of soundbite, which is not what we require. Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates; founders of companies do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just for founding companies; and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are multiple published papers and a Columbia University Press book which examine the influence of his twitter account about independent topics and from independent researchers; does this not establish notability? (Have updated page with references and additional details) Rescendent (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on above article satisfies the purpose of WP:SNG via WP:BASIC notability though analysis of his tweets in multiple independent academic sources which Wikipedia considers the most reliable WP:SOURCETYPES.
- Caliskan, Koray (2022). "Data money makers: An ethnographic analysis of a global cryptocurrency community". The British Journal of Sociology. 73: 168–187. doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12916
- Caliskan, Koray (August 1, 2023). "Chapter 4: Global Cryptocurrency Communities as Data Money Makers". *Data Money: Inside Cryptocurrencies, Their Communities, Markets, and Blockchains. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231209592
- Guidi, Barbara; Michienzi, Andrea (2022). "How to reward the web: the social dApp yup". Online Social Networks and Media. Elsevier. 31: 100–229. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2022.100229
- Tjahyana, Lady Joanne (2021). Brand Monitoring for Dogecoin Cryptocurrency on Twitter (PhD thesis). Petra Christian University
- Schnülle, Tim (2021). Algorithmic trading with cryptocurrencies - Does twitter sentiment impact short-term price fluctuations in Bitcoin (MSc). Nova School of Business and Economics. p. 49
Additionally other sources regularly mentioning, quoting and interviewing fit under "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers" WP:JOURNALIST (1.) although not as reliable sources as the academic ones. Rescendent (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the first is a name drop, the rest have no links. The Guidi article doensn't mention this person at all. The first one is on the Pubmed website, so can be read easily enough... Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in other reply you can confirm the the Guidi article does mention when checking via handle in GScholar (as well as other papers) and WP:PAPERONLY/WP:OSO is clearly listed as WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Offline_sources_only. However they can be confirmed via a correct GScholar search. Rescendent (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not mention the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says "and davidgokhshtein, a politician and financial consultant, with great interest in all cryptocurrencies"; how is this not mentioning the individual? Rescendent (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know, you haven't linked to the papers. The two I could read, one was trivial, other didn't mention him. Oaktree b (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one you are saying doesn't mention you are reading a short summary (public availability) but can confirm via the scholar search I linked and you can read the full version in the Wikipedia Library Rescendent (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While this individual fails WP:NPOL, he does seem to be a notable figure in the cryptocurrency community and has been regarded as such by multiple independent, reliable sources. Pat-Bassey Charles (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable sources? Curbon7 (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:SOURCETYPES

> When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.
As his tweets have been studied in multiple peer-reviewed journals, an academic text book and both a PhD and MSc dissertation that pass via WP:BASIC notability?
Caliskan, Koray (2022). "Data money makers: An ethnographic analysis of a global cryptocurrency community". The British Journal of Sociology. 73: 168–187. doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12916

Caliskan, Koray (August 1, 2023). "Chapter 4: Global Cryptocurrency Communities as Data Money Makers". Data Money: Inside Cryptocurrencies, Their Communities, Markets, and Blockchains. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231209592

Guidi, Barbara; Michienzi, Andrea (2022). "How to reward the web: the social dApp yup". Online Social Networks and Media. Elsevier. 31: 100–229. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2022.100229

Tjahyana, Lady Joanne (2021). Brand Monitoring for Dogecoin Cryptocurrency on Twitter (PhD thesis). Petra Christian University

Schnülle, Tim (2021). Algorithmic trading with cryptocurrencies - Does twitter sentiment impact short-term price fluctuations in Bitcoin (MSc). Nova School of Business and Economics. p. 49
Rescendent (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. The first one is literally a one-line mention in a chart, and it's a username that just happens to match the subject here (it could be anyone). It talks about an entirely different crypto currency. The rest have no links, so I can't evaulate them. He's not mentioned in the Guidi article you cite either. I'd revisit your sources, perhaps re-read them. A name drop in an article (peer-reviewed) or not, beyond proving existence, isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion about the 'entirely different cryptocurrency' requires clarification. Which cryptocurrency are you referring to as different? The mention of davidgokhshtein in diverse crypto contexts just further underscores his broader notability within the cryptocurrency community, showcasing a wide-ranging impact that extends beyond a single cryptocurrency. This aligns with the subject's recognized persona and influence across various digital currency platforms, further warranting his inclusion on Wikipedia. The individual academic mention you highlight, though brief, in a peer-reviewed publication, is a noteworthy acknowledgment in scholarly discourse, supplementing other evidence of his notability from the other multiple sources. Additionally, per WP:PAPERONLY, the lack of online links to the cited offline sources does not undermine their validity or relevance in supporting notability.

You can confirm he is referred to in the Guidi article and others via Google Scholar search if you use his twitter handle: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22DavidGokhshtein%22&btnG= which is entirely expected as he is a social media influencer; though he also shows up for other papers with full name (which is just adding a space in handle).

As per WP:NBASIC the papers demonstrate multiple reliable sources, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject and as per policy: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Rescendent (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article is about a cryptocurrency, not about David. David is only listed as a username in a chart. I can't make it any clearer. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - As per WP:FIXIT I have improved layout; categorisation and extended the referencing; including multiple references in journals; dissertations and a book to his twitter handle. The pervious focus on political candidate wasn't very notable, however isn't really the area of notability which is more the categories: Category:Social media influencers and Category:People associated with cryptocurrency Rescendent (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although it may sound controversial freedom of speech is still protected in the USA along with Free-Press & Free Interpretation that being said anything about the tech industry you should always do your own research but not many people have the adequate knowledge or understanding on how to extract facts from fictions or in this case personal believes. I vote for this article to stay open and not be altered or deleted in any way shape or form. 2600:6C56:6E09:2143:7529:128C:C934:6BA9 (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC) — 2600:6C56:6E09:2143:7529:128C:C934:6BA9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This user's sole contribution to Wikipedia... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TDLI: Freedom of speech isn't a reason to include. While Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED it is also WP:NOTFREESPEECH and articles need to pass WP:NOTE for notability to be included. Rescendent (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Freedom of speech" does not confer any entitlements to inclusion in Wikipedia in the absence of passing Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Private speech is not protected. Wiki is a private institution. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review wikipedia licensing, we can cut and modify articles at will as new information is added or removed. If you want to keep a copy as-is, it should not be on wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions, list of People-related deletion discussions, list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Rescendent (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Rescendent (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a lot of stuff in the article and plenty of sources, but I can't find the in-depth coverage in reliable and verifiable sources that would be about him needed to meet the notability standard. Most of the sources are mentions, brief interviews of him, interviews he did and tweets, but there is no support for a claim of notability, nor could I find anything more useful in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:SOURCETYPES

> When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.

As his tweets have been studied in multiple peer-reviewed journals, an academic text book and both a PhD and MSc dissertation that would suggest notability via WP:BASIC? Other sources mentioning, quoting and interviewing fit under WP:JOURNALIST (1.) although not as reliable sources as the academia ones. Rescendent (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They have not, the peer-reviews are about different subjects, that mention him in passing. The first one is about a type of crypto currency, with a username that could or could not be this person. The rest are about as useless. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> with a username that could or could not be this person

Not sure I understand your point; as a social media influencer establishing the fact that they are indeed the same person is a fairly important aspect and not something to be brushed over as "could be someone random"? Rescendent (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
David is mentioned as a username, once. That is not substantial coverage. There is no proof it's the same individual (the article does not verify the identity of the username), and the subject of that article is not about David. Being listed in a chart is not what we require for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is not significant and does not pass WP:GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is about a person so WP:SNG applies and specifically WP:BASIC and WP:JOURNALIST Rescendent (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not an experienced Wikipedian and it shows. You clearly don't understand the fact that all crypto publications are basically pay for play promotional publications, and thus the consensus is that they are considered unreliable and do not count for notability. This even includes arguably the most reliable crypto publication, CoinDesk, see WP:COINDESK, so if that doesn't count for notability, then random obscure crypto publications like "coincu", "The Coin Republic." and "Block Publisher" certainly don't. Press releases from Gokhsteins company, being interviewed on obscure podcasts and Fox Business and having short mentions in research papers is not signficiant coverage either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple journals WP:SOURCETYPES, Bloomberg, Yahoo! News (non syndicated), WP:FOXNEWS (non-politics or science), WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS are all reliable sources; why are they all talking to, quoting, referring to or analysing this individual's tweets if they are non-notable? Rescendent (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're reliable, yes, the coverage is trivial. Fox News I wouldn't touch, based on their admitted history of lying, but that's just me. We need stories about this fellow, not him being mentioned in articles about something else. No one has presented anything otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited in a very long time and my current experience does make me understand: Sayers, Freddie (2021-12-14). "Wikipedia co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created". Unheard.; don't worry is interview and non-reliable source :P Rescendent (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the above comments; does not meet WP:GNG. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is hilarious. You didn't even read the article. Corrugateboard (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the article, and concur with the pro-deletion points above. I was made aware of this article because I created the SafeMoon page, to which this article now links. I read the article, the deletion discussion, and then formed my own opinion. If there's something specific you'd like to discuss, let me know. I'm happy to change my opinion. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearcat.-KH-1 (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend you review WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and particularly WP:PERNOM and WP:PERX as you used both and nothing else. Rescendent (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE#1. I am not a fan of cryptocurrency and the major players in it, but this subject has been cited as a key player in the crypto industry. Even though they do not seem to pass WP:GNG, he certainly passes WP:CREATIVE as a creative professional in cryptocurrency and journalism as well. Shoerack (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He doesn't seem to meet any of the criterion for WP:CREATIVE#1. His work doesn't seem to be highly cited, as I couldn't find any over 100 cites.
Industrial Insect (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CREATIVE#1. It says "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Either of the statements satisfied WP:CREATIVE. It doesn't have to be both. Shoerack (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A cryptocurrency entrepreneur is clearly not what is meant by "creative professional" under any reasonable definition of that term. He's a relatively minor player in cryptocurrency circles anyway, compared to someone like Vitalik Buterin or Justin Sun and cannot be considered influential. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is he a "cryptocurrency entrepreneur"? I think you are conflating two different things; that being a social media influencer/journalist with a strong cryptocurrency leaning and an entrepreneur which are not the same things. Rescendent (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is not widely cited by peers. He isn't even mildly cited. He's also a business professional, not an artistc creator. Oaktree b (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is WP:JOURNALIST and founded a news/media company. All the "soundbites" on Bloomberg News, Yahoo! News (non syndicated), WP:FOXNEWS (non-politics or science), WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS, NPR, CNBC Indonesia are being cited by his peers as each on refers to him as the founder of said news organisation. Rescendent (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So we can't apply CREATIVE notability for JOURNALISTS. Please select one. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I selecting one about a different editors comments? Also CREATIVE and JOURNALIST are same link (go to same place) Rescendent (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bearcat is right that WP:GNG is not met, but GNG isn't the only notability criteria to consider here. I am compelled by the arguments by Pat-Badsey Charles and Shoerack. Dfertileplain (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The substance about this individual is not supported by reliable and thorough sourcing. Doesn’t get over the notability bar in my judgement either. GraziePrego (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple journals WP:SOURCETYPES, Bloomberg, Yahoo! News (non syndicated), WP:FOXNEWS (non-politics or science), WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS, NPR are all reliable sources; why are they all talking to, quoting, referring to or analysing this individual's tweets if they are non-notable? Rescendent (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You not read the nomination? "all sourced to Fox blurbs, owned media and interview" Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination was prior to WP:FIXIT Rescendent (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't call using an individual's tweets in an article "significant coverage" as per WP:BASIC, so they don't help contribute to his notability. GraziePrego (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is NPR having voice being just using an individual's tweets?

Domonoske, Camila (February 8, 2021). "It Doesn't Get More Buzzy Than This: Tesla Is Investing $1.5 Billion In Bitcoin". NPR. Rescendent (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even that article only has a few words from him. That’s not substantial coverage either. GraziePrego (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about 10 WP:BUSINESSINSIDER articles?
https://www.businessinsider.com/metaverse-tokens-crypto-ethereum-cryptocurrency-eth-facebook-meta-david-gokhshtein-2021-12

https://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-crypto-ethereum-cardano-solana-altcoins-polkadot-chainlink-david-gokhshtein-2021-8

https://www.businessinsider.com/four-altcoins-to-buy-cryptocurrency-next-dogecoin-bitcoin-meme-economy-2021-6

https://www.businessinsider.com/ether-dogecoin-xrp-bitcoin-price-forecasts-increases-crypto-ceo-gokhshtein-2021-8

https://www.businessinsider.com/crypto-investing-bitcoin-next-move-whale-control-market-china-gokhshtein-2021-7

https://www.businessinsider.com/best-altcoins-to-buy-now-bitcoin-btc-ethereum-ether-eth-2021-12

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/dogecoin-bull-gokhshtein-sees-shiba-inu-shooting-up-a-whopping-3200-from-here-1031356147

https://www.businessinsider.com/altcoins-to-buy-best-crypto-investment-opportunities-picks-expert-buying-advice-research

https://www.businessinsider.com/altcoins-to-buy-bitcoin-btc-ethereum-eth-cryptocurrency-cardano-solana-2021-9

https://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-crypto-dogecoin-ethereum-all-time-high-altcoin-solana-cardano-2021-8

Rescendent (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the same as above. GraziePrego (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:BUSINESSINSIDER itself says there's no consensus on reliability of articles from them. GraziePrego (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; inarguably fails NBASIC, and I refuse to cut him any slack on the other criterions due to most of these sources falling under “payed to care about him” or being interviews. Mach61 (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rescendent. @Oaktree b:. WP:CREATIVE does apply to journalists and other creative professionals. You may want to review WP:CREATIVE again. Yemi festus (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I personally think it should be cleaned up thoroughly and the entire Social Media Influence subsection and Views and Advocacy section be removed. Seeing LinkedIn as a reference here alone gives me a headache.

I had created two blockchain related articles (this and that) and quit contributing anything around it because the kind of sources that covers the best of works that is done on the blockchain scene would still have a tough passage on Wikipedia.

Maybe it's time we had WikiProject Blockchain to put up standards to weed out what is not acceptable. If anyone would start that, I would be at your back.Danidamiobi (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May you state why you are voting keep? Mach61 (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has some coverage and I think it should be cleaned up . Danidamiobi (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The presence of David Gokhshtein in verifiable and reliable sources, extensively covering his activities and influence within social media, attests to his notability. This substantial coverage demonstrates that he has made a noteworthy impact within his sphere, aligning with Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline WP: GNG. Retaining his article aligns with Wikipedia's commitment to providing comprehensive and informative content to its readers, especially in acknowledging individuals who have achieved recognition and influence in the digital age." --Oludegun (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've tagged over half a dozen accounts that have participated in this discussion, because they are infrequently active, and do not regularly participate in Afds, and most have no history about editing regarding cyrptocurrency related topics. I note for completeness that the majority of these editors appear to primarily edit Nigeria-related articles, which strikes me as odd, as I can't find a compelling connection between the subject and the country. I feel compelled to add that I don't think the presumed nationality of editors should be held against them, it just makes me suspicious that they've been directed here from somewhere else. To me the only plausible explanation seems to me to be at least some users were likely canvassed to this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly an unusually 'messy' AfD... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Gokhshtein is an internet and social media personality that talks about cryptocurrency. Internet and social media is global, beyond the USA, Canada, UK etc and cryptocurrency is digital (used globally too). Most social media personalities are known and have connections beyond their countries of origin or residence. For instance,
- This is CNBC Indonesia news article citing Mr Gokhshtein
- This Here is a Nigerian news article that cited Mr Gokhshtein
- Another one here and here
- There are articles in Spanish, all citing Mr Gokhshtein.
I do not understand your decision to tag Nigerian editors participating in this AfD simply because they are Nigerians. That is not nice, not nice in anyway whatsoever. Well, this is a discussion and I'll leave it at that. Corrugateboard (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closer: Corrugatecardboard has very few edits, and would likely quality as an WP:SPA. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed these badges of shame. You shouldn't tag editors as canvassed if you have no proof just because you disagree with their opinions. There opinions shouldn't be dismissed because of conclusions you have drawn on your own. The closer can review all comments and make their decision without highlighting editors based on where you think they are from. I hope to not see this happen again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Hemiauchenia: I found your tagging of my comment as "canvassing" disruptive. How did you come to the conclusion that I had been canvassed? If I had commented in support of "deleting" this article, would you have said that I was canvassed? That said, do not ever try to second-guess or link users to any country if they have not posted about their country anywhere on Wikipedia. It amounts to harassment to do that. You did tag the comment of the article creator as if they were canvassed too. Did you expect to take their article for deletion and have them not comment here? When we nominate an article for deletion, we expect and encourage the article creator to participate in the debate to give them a chance to explain why they think the article is notable enough to merit a stand-alone page here. And for new people, such as the creator of this article, it would provide them with an opportunity to learn more about what we consider notable. Tagging their comment as if they are canvassing in favour of your position is very disruptive, and I have taken the liberty to strike your tag on their comment and mine. Shoerack (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly my looking at your edits was cursory, and you editing patterns are a lot less suspicious than the other editors I tagged, and I still stand by those taggings. I never tagged the article creator that was someone else, and the SPA tag is perfectly valid, though I suspect their article creation was an act of UPE too.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about others as I am not familiar with their editing history to draw any conclusion. Rescendent did not create this article; it was created by Corrugateboard. Shoerack (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the article; I just applied WP:FIXIT before voting since it was a new editor everyone seemed to be using WP:GHITS (in a weird way, saying too many) and WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:ITSCRUFT about the subject having crypto currency connections. I did initially agree was a non-notable politician; but after research found the subject was clearly notable but for a different topic and was getting an unfair WP:PPOV from politician/area editors; so sought to improve the article instead.

On the other hand you suggested the article creator Corrugateboard as "certainly canvassed/UPE" and marked their vote as WP:SPA which is very WP:BITE and then proceeded to mark everyone else (except me because you thought I created it) as canvassed; but in comment also saying I am UPE. While such an accusation doesn't fall under WP:UNCIVIL it definitely doesn't WP:AGF; where is you evidence? Rescendent (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OMG you literally tagged everyone who voted "keep" as canvassed suggesting there is no reason anyone could vote otherwise even though this AFD is on 27 wiki project pages (deletion sorting or project category) Rescendent (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Right. Here we go:

Pat-Bassey Charles No presence on Wikipedia since 29 July 2023, lands at this AfD 25 September & votes Keep. Vast majority of all contributions to Wikipedia outside this AfD are directly connected with Nigerian topics.
2600:6C56:6E09:2143:7529:128C:C934:6BA9 Sole contribution to Wikipedia is a keep vote on this AfD.
Dfertileplain No presence on Wikipedia since 30 June 2023, lands here 2 October, makes 5 edits within half an hour and then votes at this AfD... keep, of course. Vast majority of all contributions to Wikipedia outside this AfD are directly connected with Nigerian topics.
Yemi festus Inactive since 17 August barring one edit on 28 September and then rocks up here on the 4th October with a keep vote. Over 99% of all contributions outside this AfD are directly connected with Nigerian topics.
Danidamiobi Inactive since 30 August bar two edits on 19 September and one on 21 September. And then over to this AfD on 5 October with a keep vote. Vast majority of all contributions to Wikipedia outside this AfD are directly connected with Nigerian topics.

I'm not going to go on. Hemiauchenia has every right to be very, very suspicious and I'll happily add my name to the list of very suspicious people. This whole AfD has been traduced by COI/UPE players - I've never seen the like of it, TBH. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find it unlikely Yemi festus specifically was canvassed; they’re a productive editor and made a valid policy based argument Mach61 (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP address is Texan; however their reason doesn't really count as WP:NOTFREESPEECH; other than that outlier Hemiauchenia and you seem mainly to be complaining about people you suspect to be Nigerians.

According to Cryptocurrency in Nigeria 32% of participating Nigerians used cryptocurrencies; wiki even has a page for it; so perhaps being on WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cryptocurrency is related to Nigerian topics, idk.

However using an edit gap of a couple months and that you suspect them of being Nigerian seems very WP:PREJUDICED when 3 of 4 are WP:XCON and other is WP:CONFIRM editors and fairly close to being WP:XCON. Rescendent (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you suddenly started edting, after not having edited at all since 2016, solely to participate in this discussion and edit the article, you're not exactly unsuspicious either.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Can just as easily throw it back why is someone who mostly edits palaeontology articles voting on Gokhshtein a topic he has little connection to, unless canvassed?

Is a bit WP:UNCIVIL to not assume WP:AGF and do that? Rescendent (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that Hemiauchenia has every right to be suspicious when a group of random editors who aren't active very often all with similar editing interests start voting the exact same option. That being said, tagging Rescendent and everyone else with a keep vote was unnecessary. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a bit surprised that my efforts to stick to creating mostly articles rather than actual edits is deemed as inactivity. I had even established that I had created articles to related to this in the past and what could be done in good faith. Well. Danidamiobi (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Is the subject of the article a Nigerian? I would very much agree with Hemiauchenia if the topic is a Nigerian-related article. I find it weird that an American journalist would pay some random people from Nigeria to write or edit articles, much less comment on WP:AfD. The accusation of UPE is unsubstantiated and should probably be struck at this point. Do you have evidence of this accusation beyond the fact that they are from Nigeria and only comment after a few months of inactivity? I assume you do, since that is a serious accusation to make against editors who share opposing views. Evidence that is clear enough, such as being privy to who made the payment, to whom, and how much was paid? Shoerack (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This casting of aspersions and making comments about editor's possible or real ethnicities needs to stop NOW. You aren't making a persuasive argument to Keep or Delete this article by making accusations about other editors. That behavior has no place in an AFD discussion and I'm disappointed to see experienced editors indulging in this misconduct. Leave it to the closer to evaluate the strength of the arguments instead of trying to undermine othre editors. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to user:Rescendent,32% of Nigeria's 213 million population use crypto currency. They could want to keep the article on this "crypto entrepreneur" because they use cryptocurrency themselves. That being said, it shouldn't discount any valid arguments made. AfD isn't a majority vote, so it shouldn't matter all too much. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Fowler[edit]

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

A claim to notability has been made regarding a medal from the Massachusetts Humane Society (see Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Massachusetts Humane Society Award) but consensus seems to be that this does not meet the "well known and significant award" test of WP:ANYBIO. Per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Howard Van Pelt and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles O. Beebe the job of maritime pilot is not in and of itself notable. Melcous (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages which make the same claim to notability regarding these awards

Delete: all three. Born, grew up, had a decent, albeit dangerous, job, had children, died. Sounds like a pleasant life, but fails to pass WP:BIO/WP:GNG. They are each WP:ROTM folk, and I find it har to see them as passing any notability criteria, except for those who loved them. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dolliver has a WP:SIGCOV obituary here, and Fowler has several decent sources, e.g. a full-page biography and discussion on over ten pages in this book, plus a decent-length Boston Globe article and obits from major newspapers stretching from coast to coast, plus Lawler is covered extensively with a five-page long biography in this book, in addition to a decent obit in a major newspaper. I'm not liking these bundled nominations and these people look like WP:GNG passes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Maine, and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All per the sources above found by BeanieFan11. Consider it a procedural keep if you like. These should not have been bundled. Jfire (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest doing a procedural keep of both this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James D. M. Beebe, each of which have way too many articles to be evaluated at once – each of varying notability and some near-certainly notable – ~~and seem to be harassment of a single user~~. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but how is three articles "way too many" to be evaluated at once? I have sought to group together those that make the same WP:N claims. If you have policy reasons for suggesting there is notability for some of these, please do so. But please check the history on this before throwing around accusations of harrassment: this is the result of significant discussion between multiple editors over months about these and other articles. Melcous (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly referring to the other bundle of 10 in the Beebe AFD - I do see some discussion and there does seem to be some concerns, so I'll strike my thought that this could be harassment - I still don't like these bundles, though. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11 and Jfire - There is nothing wrong with creating a bundle of related articles to be deleted together, whether there are 3 or 10 or more. It is definitely not against policy to do so. In fact we have a guideline on it: WP:BUNDLE. There is a long history behind the articles in this walled garden, several editors and admins are aware of this. The nominator is not out of line here, they are acting in good faith. Netherzone (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the nom appeared in good faith and there did appear to be a few concerns, which was why I struck part of my comment - this and Beebe still don't seem like good bundles to me, however. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The groupings here seem to be "articles about Boston/New York pilots of the 19th century created by an editor who is in hot water for other issues". The issue with nominating them as a group is that their notability isn't clear cut enough that we can make inferences about whether they should all be deleted by looking at one or two articles, or by extrapolating from past experience with the articles' creator. Many or most of the subjects have obituaries in major papers of the era, many have additional contemporary coverage, and some have modern coverage. These sources may or may not be enough to meet WP:BASIC. By nominating them en masse, we get the effect that most commentators either don't even notice that multiple articles are up for deletion, or look at one or two superficially and make conclusions about them that do not necessarily apply to all. This is why WP:BUNDLE is generally discouraged except in very clear cut cases: "An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled—nominate it separately." It short circuits WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Jfire (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jfire, I have sought to bundle these related to the notability claims made and undertake some WP:BEFORE work as much as possible. Bundling was actually suggested by an administrator. There are more problematic articles, and if the consensus is they need to be done one at a time then I will do that for those, but it will take up a lot of people's time. For now, could you please explain what you are referring to as "modern coverage" for any of the subjects of the articles in this nomination? Melcous (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the work you've put in, Melcous. The "modern coverage" I found was biographical sketches of William C. Fowler (deleted in the James Howard Van Pelt AfD) and George Lawler in Cunliffe, Tom (2001). Pilots. Vol. 1. Le Chasse-Maree/Maritime Life and Traditions. Jfire (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of Wikipedia:Walled garden, please read its talk page and the fowling note: “This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.” Greg Henderson (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three. The newspaper "articles" are just reports of death and disposal of ashes with no significant biography. The book is privately published as a gizzit to customers of a bank, no editorial oversight and not a subject field expert Lyndaship (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with @Lyndaship above. Not notable and should be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity Go4thProsper, do you mean "notable" or "not notable"? Thanks Melcous (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch Melcous. I meant not notable and have corrected it above, too. Go4thProsper (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - These three non-notable boat pilots were simply doing their job, like millions of employees around the world. Hundreds of thousand of employees receive non-notable awards for doing their job well. These are run-of-the-mill boat pilots WP:MILL. The points |Lyndaship makes are accurate, millions of people have an obituary as an announcement of death and funeral proceedings; and there is no way of knowing if the family submitted it. Lyndaship's point about the fact that the book is not a reliable source was a good observation; it was printed by a bank as a perk to customers, it's swag, and it should not be used in any of these articles. Netherzone (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies the WP:BASIC guidelines by being supported by numerous reliable published sources, including secondary sources that exhibit intellectual independence from one another and independence from the subject matter. For example, Fowler and Lawler have secondary sources listed in this book about pilots. Let's ensure the enduring recognition of the notable 19th-century Sandy Hook pilots in our encyclopedia! Preserving their legacy is essential for any comprehensive record. I do not like putting so many pilots into one Afd request. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding that book "source", two editors are questioning that book. It is self-published by the Second Bank of State Street, Boston, and "privately printed" (self-published). There is no indication that there was any editorial oversight by a reputable publisher. It's swag for bank customers, not a reliable source.

In the introduction the bank president and chairman of the board state it was published to give their customers "the impression received will be so favorable the reader will feel that our publications typify the instutution which issues them and the high standard maintained in their form and material is characteristic of the banking and trust services we render. It would be gratifying to us if the enjoyment derived from our brochures should induce readers to consider our bank when occasions arrive for opening bank accounts or taking advantage of our loaning faciliites which are available to business organizations and individuals....we also welcome opportunities to be helpful in making small loans, including those financing the purchase of automobiles and household appliances. It may be that some readers do not realize that our Trust Department is qualified by long experience to serve effectively as Agent in the handling of investments as Trustee of Living Trusts, Pension and Profit Sharing Plans, Life Insurance Trusts, as Executor and Trustee under wills and in any other recognized trust capacity. ". It is a promotional marketing brochure - swag. Netherzone (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is more than swag. Historically, some authors have chosen to self-publish, e.g. John Locke, Jane Austen, Emily Dickinson, etc. Edward A. Laycock, editor for the Boston Globe said this about the book: Pilots and Pilot Boats of Boston Harbor is a thing of beauty, a collecor's item. The careful and accurate text is matched by the factual photos and the beautiful color reproductions of paintings. The history of piloting, the why of piloting, the dangers of piloting, the training of pilots, and 24 hours on a pilot boat, all are covered. The booklet is a rare bit of writing and book production." Greg Henderson (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does your credibility no good when you quote a source and then omit something which is not supportive of your POV. The last sentence of the quote actually says The booklet is a rare piece of bank promotion as well as a rare bit of writing and book production Lyndaship (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting how some editors like to twist things to fit their justification for deleting articles that provide historical facts about 19th century New York and Boston pilots. In the Foreword to the Piots book, treasurer-manager Charles H. Taylor of the Boston Globe wrote to Allan Forbes, who was President of the State Street Trust Company, said: "The idea is to have a history of pilotage in Boston with stories and pictures of early and also famous pilot boats and little sketches of some of the more famous pilots themselves." The quote from Lyndaship goes further by saying "The booklet is a rare pice of bank promotion as well as a rare bit of writing and book production." The bank produced 40 of these type of New England brochures covering many subjects including New England Taverns and inns, and Yankee Clippers. Here a third review of the book. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I self published a non fiction book. I have had some good reviews. That does not make it in any way RS (for example). 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another review of the book is here. Editor Leonard M. Fowle, said "Another member of the Globe family, the late Charles M. Wright, contributed to the publication through photographs of pilot boats, bits of piloting lore, and by introducing the author to living pilots. There are many fasicnationg facts gathered by Eastman in Pilots and Pilot Boat. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book is a questionable/unacceptable source for the following reasons:

1) it is self published

2) there is no evidence of editorial oversight, therefore no evidence of fact-checking or accuracy

3) it is sponsored content which is a form of conflict-of-interest covert advertising

4) it's a promotional marketing tool (a form of advertising/bank promotional merchandise) by the self-publisher (a.k.a swag, gizzit, promo products, freebie, etc. used for marketing and sales of the bank's financial products)

5) it is unfootnoted therefore it is unclear where the information contained therein is sourced.

Therefore it is not best practices to use such sources, and they should be used with caution if at all. As we have seen, on occasion some writers just make up "factoids" to fluff up a person's claimed importance which may be the case with this source. Netherzone (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Fails GNG and NBIO, having your name mentioned in print is not the same as WP:SIGCOV addressing the suject directly and in depth. Perfectly normal non-notable individuals. // Timothy :: talk 21:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 15:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gond Mahasabha[edit]

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

The subject of this article is non notable. Sources are scarce as the event or conference is not a notable one. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and India. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya Malkapuram[edit]

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

I can find nothing to indicate this is anything but a run of the mill school. KylieTastic (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. KylieTastic (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The top results are socail media pages. Also, this article is so short probably because you can barely find any information on this school anywhere. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 13:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Green Arrow. ✗plicit 12:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Industries[edit]

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

Another fictional company of very dubious notability. My WP:BEFORE is not showing anything except some plot summaries (unless you count the the tirial list of media this entity appeared in), which is what is also solely present in the article. Redirect to Green Arrow per WP:CHEAP/WP:ATD? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Arrow - Fairly obvious redirect case. Searches for sources are not really turning up anything that isn't just mentioning/describing the company as an important component to Green Arrow's character, making it a pretty clear WP:NOPAGE situation. The company is mentioned throughout the Green Arrow article already, so a merge would not be needed. Rorshacma (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Arrow agree that its a natural redirect target and there is really no information to merge. Rhino131 (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Arrow. No reliable coverage to merge, but there is a valid WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdurahman Nasser[edit]

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

Following WP:NSPORTS2022, articles like this are under more scrutiny and, to be honest, with 1 league game for Al-Sadd and 1 for Muaither, he barely met the old guidelines anyway. My Arabic searches have yielded no decent results about this particular Abdurahman Nasser and so there is no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of longest walks as an ATD as the subject has a section there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shihab Chottur[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. Lots of people take long walks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the attention was focused only because of the walking.WP:BLP1E, fails WP:GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of longest walks, where there's already a subsection about him. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split between delete and redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing to claim other than being a long distance walker. Most of the coverage he received was because of some controversies like [18]. 111.92.123.60 (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rashed Ahmed Rashed[edit]

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

Played 8 mins in a professional league and then disappeared. My WP:BEFORE search in Arabic did not yield any examples of significant coverage. I can find no evidence of meeting the current agreed guidelines - WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinemas in Oceania[edit]

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

Doesn't meet NLIST. We're not a business directory; none of these are notable movie theaters. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Business, Lists, and Oceania. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Orphan list, and with good reason...this is not a subject anyone would need an encyclopedia for. Wikipedia is not a directory. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is better as a category than an article, and with Australia and New Zealand removed. Nate • (chatter) 23:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Change to Category- as per @MrSchimpf PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTDIRECTORY. Agletarang (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of the theaters on the list have articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entries are not notable. GraziePrego (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajith Vinayaka Films[edit]

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

The article does not have sufficient references to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations/companies (WP:ORG). The references currently included are primarily routine announcements about the company's upcoming/past productions Akshithmanya ^talk 11:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Kerala. Akshithmanya ^talk 11:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaw Swar Linn[edit]

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

In my WP:BEFORE search in both Burmese and English, I could not find any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Only sources found are Transfermarkt, FBref, Soccerway etc. which SPORTBASIC asks us to disregard for notability purposes. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olímpio Ferreira Chaves[edit]

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

Simply being one of the first 13 pilots in the Portuguese Air Force isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. He gets mentions only. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Without trying to read non-English sources present, their titles do not suggest WP:SIGCOV is met, and the nom is right that if this is the best claim for notability, well, it's a very weak one. Do ping me if SIGCOV-meeting reliable sources are found, and I'll revise my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sinkha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability issues since 2007, can find little not self-published, unable to spot any likely viable merge targets. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Comics and animation, and Computing. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: previous debate (in 2008!) seems to have been an easily delete but article was recreated soon afterwards. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per last time, and maybe salt. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's remove niche projects like Sinkha, it's just useless information wasted on mighty Wikipedia Kaminari (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing whatsoever wrong with niche projects or useless information, providing they have some sort of secondary sourcing. This does not seem to be the case, as most of the links seem to be to websites with a COI, and next to none of the material is sourced; all-in-all it's had a good run. Just being snarky doesn't help that, sadly; do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find reviews on Metacritic, and BDtheque in French is user-generated, so of no help. There are no reviews that I can see. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work with the content of this article in Draft space, contact me or WP:REFUND Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Employee voice[edit]

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

an indecipherable mess of prose. blow it up, then blow it up again. ltbdl (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some sort of an essay, without proper context. Not Essay. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of re-creation by someone with a better grasp of what Wikipedia is for. This topic seems to have recognition in the literature, but the article is a personal essay. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'Employee voice' is a an appropriate topic for an article. It's a widely accepted concept (see e.g. https://www.cipd.org/en/knowledge/factsheets/voice-factsheet/ ) and there's a growing body of academic literature on it (see, for example, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369998765_Employee_Voice_A_Systematic_Literature_Review . The current article certainly certainly needs a lot of work to get it into better shape, and I note that the January 2023 version appears to have been deleted and replaced by editors in September 2023 who seem to have been working on this article as part of an assigned project for an educational course. Reverting in full or part to the Jan 2023 version might not be a bad starting point for improving the article. Hmee2 (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this version? yeah, that's... also not very good.

Employee voice refers to the participation of employees in influencing organizational decision-making. Decision-making by managers an influence their creativity. The process is going very personal to the managers and what they believe will be beneficial for everyone. The creativity of one person's view can change the dynamic of a project. Having personal views is what allows them to make decisions for the better.

ltbdl (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A complete mess with no salvageable revision to revert back to. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. I think this is a concept with potential, and we definitely cover related topics such as Employee stock ownership and Workplace participation in the United Kingdom. BD2412 T 20:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above, an unsourced essay with no salvagable content. If there is an article here, the author shouldn't be burdened with this legacy. // Timothy :: talk 21:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to TOI-1452 b. (or vice versa) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TOI-1452[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. Makes a claim to be notable on account of having a planet, but that in itself isn't notable (not any more, anyway). There are a couple of papers about the planet, none dedicated to the star. Lithopsian (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to TOI-1452 b for insufficient information to stand by itself. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't merging the planet to the star system make much more sense instead? Orchastrattor (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created the article. My original goal was to add some information about the star system for the planet TOI-1452b. The article for the planet already included a link to it's parent star system TOI-1452 (and edit history shows the link has existed since Sept of 2022). But the link was red since the star system article didn't yet exist.

So I created the new article to populate content for the already existing (but red) link, and added the new content there. I do think that additional information about the star system will likely be learned in the near term.

But if these two articles were merged in some fashion it would be fine by me. MetaEtcher (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete since there's already an article on the planet TOI-1452 b. These two articles should be merged into one, preferably at TOI-1452 (the entire system instead of the planet), but since there's only one known planet in the system it doesn't matter too much. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Merge proposals here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of WWE television programming#This Week in WWE (2009–present). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Week in WWE (TV program)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022 DonaldD23 talk to me 20:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of WWE television programming#This Week in WWE (2009–present) as an alternative to deletion — its mention there is probably as much as an official recap show (that likely does not receive much significant coverage on its own) needs. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Adidas Predator[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ TarnishedPath^talk 03:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

1) Per WP:NOTADVERT this at the very least needs WP:TNT 2) Fails WP:GNG as the vast majority of the sources used are not reliable. A google search does not uncover any additional WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 04:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - This was a mistake for me to nominate this. When I was reviewing the list of sources I saw a lot of sources that I had seen in similar articles that I'd recently nominated for AfD and I knew they were bad, however my eyes missed the Complex one so I didn't check it and I should have. TarnishedPath^talk 03:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Sports, and Football. TarnishedPath^talk 04:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, see e.g. coverage in Complex. Giant Snowman 10:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage online and exactly the same as per my post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adidas Copa Mundial. Govvy (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Govvy, is my explanation above enough for you? Giant Snowman 17:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable due to coverage in Complex, The Athletic, and other reliable sources. Tails Wx 12:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article, especially after clean-up has been started. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of science fiction universes[edit]

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

Unreferenced list that might as well be called list of science fiction series. Too broad, fails NLIST, there is no corresponding category. Arguably any work of fiction, and certainly science fiction, creates its own "universe". IF kept, this probably should be renamed list of science fiction fictional universes, per fictional universe concept, but sourcing is a major issue (some universes listed here are red links, a few by a seeming non-notable authors, sigh). Note related, partially overlapping and not much better List of fictional universes in literature, List of fictional universes in animation and comics and List of fictional shared universes in film and television. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are, being generous, maybe about ten or so links here to actual full articles on fictional universes. The rest of the list is just a very arbitrary listing of various random science fictions stories and franchises. As the nom states, with the criteria currently on display in this list, it could essentially just list every single piece of science fiction as its own "universe", which is not a feasible grouping, and is redundant to the many, many other lists of science fiction we have grouped by more specific criteria. At the very least, the list should be pared down to the small number of links to genuine articles on specific science fiction univeserses, and then maybe decide from there what to do with what's left. Rorshacma (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too broad and redundant to other lists excluding the dozen universes with actual articles. AryKun (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This whole premise is WP:OR. These are literally just links to fiction or series, with the word "universe" tacked on. Redundant to List of science fiction novels and other similar lists, which are more well defined, and clearly a real verifiable concept. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NLIST and is a case of WP:OR. User:Let'srun 17:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with a lot of pruning to keep just the notable ones (e.g. Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate [SG1, Atlantis, Universe], Battlestar Galactica). It does satisfy NLIST, e.g. "Viewpoint: Why do fictional universes matter?" (BBC News), "10 Sci-Fi Universes Whose Technology Could Actually Happen" (Screen Rant). And if fantasy universes are discussed by The Guardian ("Top 10 fantasy fiction universes"), how can you exclude science fiction? As per Fictional universe#Universe vs. setting, it is not for single works, but rather for series (of books, not a single TV series). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Fictional universes exist. Some of the things listed have the word "universe" listed in their title. Is there anything here that wouldn't be listed at List of fictional universes in literature, List of fictional shared universes in film and television, and List of fictional universes in animation and comics? Just make it a link to those three articles and the article for Fictional universe. Any popular show will have books and comic books made, so not sure if there is a reason for any separate list at all. Popular books get made into films and television shows all the time. Perhaps list all fictional universes together, and have a column listing what media they have been in, and if anyone cares about the genre, have a column for it as well. Dream Focus 07:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim. I believe this topic does satisfy WP:NLIST, based on the secondary sources listed and others like this or this. All other raised concerns can be dealt with by limiting the list to science fiction universes which are notable (in the Wikipedia sense) separately from their respective works of fiction, as has already been suggested by others. Then it's no longer redundant to List of science fiction novels and the like. In comparison to the other lists suggested in the nomination, this is the companion to List of fantasy worlds. So it looks at fictional universes from the point of view of genre, while the others organize them along the lines of medium. So while they may have some of the same entries, they have different functions. Daranios (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others, although it needs cleanup to remove the universes that have not been discussed in a significant way in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've done a quick first pass at cleanup, removing the obviously non-notable entries, and entries that were clearly just linking to individual works or franchise overview pages rather than articles specifically about or having significant content about the universe they take place in. Still a lot more to go through and cleanup, but I am at least satisfied that reducing this to a clearly defined list that passes WP:LISTN is easily possible, so I am fine with Keeping this now. We can have further discussion on if we want to reorganize or merge this in to other existing fictional universe lists/articles once it is cleaned up, but that is not something that needs to be decided now. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per efforts of editors to improve the article. I think keeping it as a disambiguation page for articles that are explicitly talking about fictional universes is for the best, and per the recent Lists of Nintendo Characters AfD, even though the list can be seen as redundant, it still serves a navigational purpose. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this meets NLIST. In addition to some of the sources above, the concept is picked up in academic work, eg
1. The book Industrial Society and the Science Fiction Blockbuster by Mark T. Decker has SIGCOV of the concept across a few examples. [19]. Here's a review of that book [20]
2. This discussion in the context of film. (Crewe, David. 2017. CINEMA SCIENCE. Screen Education(86): 42-49, [21])
3. A published moderated discussion between several authors that compares multiple universes including Foundation, Known Space, and others including some of the panelists' own works (Bear, Greg, Gregory Benford, David Brin, and Gary Westfahl. “Building on Isaac Asimov’s Foundation: An Eaton Discussion with Joseph D. Miller as Moderator.” Science Fiction Studies 24, no. 1 (1997): 17–32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4240573.)

—siro χ o 06:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From a WP:PAGEDECIDE perspective, this seems like a very questionable page to retain. I think Dream Focus presents a pretty strong case that the best solution would be a single table of fictional universes (limited to ones with stand-alone Wikipedia articles) with columns for medium and genre. This would presumably be at the title list of fictional universes, with all the current lists (this one, List of fictional universes in literature, List of fictional universes in animation and comics, and so on) redirecting there. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that makes sense. Some universes are not easy to clasify genre-wise, and split by genre and medium is confusing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both medium and genre are a reality, so I see no problem with the existing lists. And if a fictional universe has the genre of science fantasy or something, there is no harm in including it in several lists. That said, I have no objections to a proper merge on the basis of WP:PAGEDECIDE, if the information is preserved - like it is done in the "Media" column of List of fantasy worlds with respect to the medium. A resulting list should also be sortable, so that users interested only in e.g. science fiction can easily find their segment. Daranios (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think splitting information across several pages needlessly is a problem, especially when it makes Wikipedia less useful to the reader as is the case here. And yes, sortability should go without saying. TompaDompa (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This. One list > several lists. Most readers don't want to think which list to check, they just want one that has everything relevant in it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I am find with merging in the other lists if that's expected to be helpful, though that question is more indirectly related to deletion. I did not expect a discussion that started with the criticsm "too broad" to end in suggestions to make the scope signficantly broader, but I guess the nomination meant a different dimension of "broad". Daranios (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghent University Association[edit]

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

The article primarily indicates a connection between four distinct universities in Belgium. At present, the article doesn't cite any sources, and I couldn't quickly find reliable secondary sources, though they may be available elsewhere. Based on my review, I don't believe this article passes WP:ORG. Significa liberdade (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I've found three additional Dutch language, "possibly" reliable sources about the association (other than the organization's own webpage). The first is a description of AUGent on Ghent University's homepage ([22]). The second is a political science paper on Semantic Scholar that seems to be about the association but only has its abstract available ([23]). The third is a document coauthored by Ghent University and HoGent ([24]). However, there are two issues. First, I don't speak Dutch. My evaluation of these sources was based on Google Translate, which isn't very trustworthy. It would be best if we could get a Dutch speaking editor here. Second, even based on my not-very-reliable evaluation of these sources, the third source's reliability is very doubtful, and the second source, at least before we can find the paper itself, provides not much more information other than showing that the association exists. Consequently, I'm currently leaning more towards delete. Liu1126 (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Amiga[edit]

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

Notability is borderline but I think this one falls on non-notable. Her most notable role is likely the recurring one in Rome but past that WP:SIGCOV seems extremely limited. I found an interview in Selig Film News but nothing more significant. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Noting that sources have been added to the article but that I do not believe they rise to WP:SIGCOV of Amiga herself. Of the sources, one is a database entry, one is the interview linked above, and the others only give her single-sentence (or less) mentions about projects she's worked. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the nominator how this may considered borderline, especially with zero references at the time. I have added 12 citations since nomination - some of which are sigcov, or sigcov reviews, of works she played a major part creating. Both WP:NACTOR and WP:FILMMAKER apply: as an actor, Amiga has had significant roles in definitely notable productions (Rome, Southcliffe), and as a screenwriter and director of short films her work has attracted several sigcov secondary reviews. There has been some attention from notable film festivals too, however I am still working to ascertain the full list of what awards she has either won or been nominated for (TorinoFilmLab has a bio with further detail on her filmmaking career [25]). Taken altogether and in the spirit of WP:BASIC, that multiple sources may be combined, I lean towards the presumption of notability. ResonantDis_tortion 19:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Slight keep~~ Delete, Depending on how strict you want to be with sources that contribute to notability, it could flip. I would say that it does pass with FNs 1, 11, and maybe 2 and 9 (with others possibly contributing). Though if any of these were decided to not contribute to notability, I will switch my !vote. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 02:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My analysis is that 1 is a bio at an event Amiga was involved in - Probably WP:PRIMARY and only a paragraph, so not WP:SIGCOV. 11 is a database entry with no actual coverage, it's just a list of three things she's been involved with - Again, not SIGCOV. 2 doesn't even mention Amiga's name, just a show she played a character in. 9 is decent but an interview, so it's also PRIMARY. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my vote to delete. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 11:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I largely agree with ResonantDistortion's assessment here, and will further note that the guideline raised, also known as WP:CREATIVE doesn't require the contributions to be in a single form. Acting, writing, directing, all-in-one, etc go towards the SNG. Evaluating the collective body of work, anchored by Rome, I think the SNG is met and presumption of notability is there. —siro χ o 08:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The only agreement here is that the sources in this article could be improved, the difference of opinion is on whether or not this is possible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IGaming Business[edit]

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

After eliminating related press releases and churnalism, there is not enough for GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, can I ask specifically what your issue with the sources I added are? StartOkayStop (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Gamblingnews.com is no better than a press release. Anything that quotes press releases and add no critical commentary is a puff piece. Three of your cites are the entity, itself, so they're not independent. Stashbird is focused on online gambling, so I don't see that it provides this subject any notability. My assertion is that the subject fails WP:GNG: that is, there are not enough reliable sources with in-depth coverage to claim the subject is notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: If we accept the premise that the subject of this article is a genuine media outlet then looking for in-depth coverage is not the right criteria to use. Media outlets generally don’t write deep profiles of other media outlets. There’s a few essays on this. Not casting a vote yet as I haven’t looked too far into this one specifically just making a comment on the lack of “in-depth” coverage here. WilsonP NYC (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It is one of the most significant trade magazines in the industry. PaulT2022 (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Chris troutman’s assessment of the sources as inadequate. The one possible exception is SportBusiness; it’s behind a paywall and I can’t review it.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gambling. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I originally didn't want to vote, but, seeing the lack of participation, I am going to vote keep because I don't want this to get WP:AFDPROD'd. I agree with the assessment that several of the sources are inadequate-- but, as @WilsonP NYC said, finding in-depth coverage of media outlets like this that meet all 5 GNG criteria is difficult, particularly when it's in a niche like online gambling. That said, while I would consider it as passing notability currently, I will work to add more sources to prove it further. StartOkayStop (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The outlet is frequently cited in books and articles about online gambling. StartOkayStop (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @StartOkayStop: Can you please provide some of the sources you have found? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Werneth, Greater Manchester#Sport. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Werneth Cricket Club[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. Non-notable. Tails Wx 02:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and England. Tails Wx 02:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails WP:GNG as the coverage is only the usual match reports and usual local cricket team website stuff. There is this but would be nice to see some more. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would usually argue for a redirect in a situation like this but I'm not sure there is a great target. The league they currently play in Greater Manchester Cricket League is a redlink and the bluelink league from the article Central Lancashire Cricket League is defunct. Jenks24 (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Werneth, Greater Manchester#Sport a heading I've just created in the Werneth article. Made use of the citation found by User:Rugbyfan22 above. Rupples (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this redirect FWIW. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Please move sources from this discussion into the article when convenient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Patife[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only sources found are sources that are non-independent and interviews in Portuguese. Tails Wx 02:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Brazil. Tails Wx 02:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BASIC
1. SIGCOV in an Australian newspaper [26]
2. SIGCOV in UK paper [27]
3. SIGCOV in a Time Out guide [28]
4. SIGCOV in a Scottish paper [29]
5. Couple reviews on allmusic that provide some coverage of the subject [30][31]

There seems to be a lot of snippets of coverage in Muzik and other dead tree sources of that era.

Probably also meets WP:MUSICBIO#7 for Drum and bass per some of the above sources as well as NYT[32]. —siro χ o 04:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:SIGCOV per sources identified by Siroxo.4meter4 (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enzo Deligny[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY. Driver has only contested a handful of races in entry level categories. As a side note, this also represents a wider problem with WP:MOTOR in that more and more drivers without notability are getting articles. MSportWiki (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I do agree that he isn't notable at the moment but he has a lot of Wikipedia:POTENTIAL and should therefore be kept as a draft. Formula Downforce (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another creepy WP:BLP of a non-notable child. We don't need dozens of articles like this to constantly scour through for vandalism when whatever independent coverage there is will almost certainly be WP:ROUTINE in nature. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing creepy about a young racing driver with a lot of talent having a Wikipedia page. Just Draftify the article until he moves up to a more noticeable series. S (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasoning of @HumanBodyPiloter5.

RegalZ8790 (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Formula Downforce explains it pretty well. KVYTICAL (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 00:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kacper Sztuka[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY. Driver has only contested a handful of races in entry level categories. As a side note, this also represents a wider problem with WP:MOTOR in that more and more drivers without notability are getting articles. MSportWiki (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Poland. Skynxnex (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I do agree that he isn't notable at the moment but he has a lot of Wikipedia:POTENTIAL and should therefore be kept as a draft.Formula Downforce (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can we just introduce a blanket rule against creating articles about Formula 4 drivers unless they're noteworthy for something else? We don't need dozens of WP:BLPs of seventeen year olds to be constantly checking for vandalism where essentially all the independent coverage is WP:ROUTINE if any exists at all. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - This was already a draft in the first place and was contentiously moved to mainspace by a user in June. Sztuka is not notable at present but WP:POTENTIAL is more than evident. Furthermore, the nominator's rationale is nonsense - Sztuka hasn't "only contested a handful of races in entry-level categories", he has won a dozen races and also a championship title in entry-level categories. The wider problem here is new users not bothering to read Wikipedia's guidelines and making articles for random drivers they like. I reckon this should be tackled with immediate draftifications and talk page messages, not AfD's. MSport1005 (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article of a MINOR, per HumanBodyPiloter5. RegalZ8790 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify the article; Sztuka has shown sufficient Wikipedia:POTENTIAL and his win count in entry-level categories ranks in the double digits. I agree with the sentiment that his notability is not sufficient for an outright article yet, but deleting his page instead of draftifying it would make no sense, as the page has a high probability of being used in the future. KVYTICAL (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify the article. KVYTICAL makes a good point. BurningBlaze05 (talk) 9:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 00:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Slater (racing driver)[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY. Driver has only contested a handful of races in entry level categories. As a side note, this also represents a wider problem with WP:MOTOR in that more and more drivers without notability are getting articles. MSportWiki (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Slater is one of the greatest kart racers of all time. According to Ayrton Senna, it is more difficult to win a karting championship than to win a Formula 1 championship.

Freddie Slater is destined to become another Lando Norris within 3 to 4 years.

I don't see why his page should be deleted while so many other unknown drivers have a Wikipedia page. IntelligereOmnia (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karting and Formula 4 do not meet WP:NOTABILITY. A drivers' potential is also not valid grounds for an article. MSportWiki (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is destined to become another Lando Norris within 3 to 4 years.

Then in 3 to 4 years, we have an article on him. But per WP:CRYSTAL, we don't do it beforehand. We're not here to do tips. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I do agree that he isn't notable at the moment but he has a lot of Wikipedia:POTENTIAL and should therefore be kept as a draft.Formula Downforce (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another creepy article about a child competing in very low-level motorsport events. Lack of non-WP:ROUTINE coverage from independent sources that I can see. Falls foul of WP:NOTDATABASE and the subject at most seems to be notable for WP:ONEEVENT. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per argument of HumanBodyPiloter5 - Slater is a 15-year-old minor. RegalZ8790 (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I second Formula Downforce's argument. KVYTICAL (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Formula Downforce makes a good argument. BurningBlaze05 (talk) 8:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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