< February 13	February 15 >

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Allen (diplomat)[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Second source is dead, and could not find WP:SIGCOV in google news search. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Israel, Spain, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above arguments. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:27, 16 February 2024 (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 Haeundae District#Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haeundae Tourism High School[edit]

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

This article is unreferenced, the current references are dead, and I could find no significant Coverage myself. I believe it would fail WP:SIGCOV and fails to meet the standards set in WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG 1keyhole (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 1keyhole (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [1][2] (Busan Ilbo) [3] (The Hankyoreh)[4][5] toobigtokale (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a properly sourced summary to Haeundae District#Education, using the above sources. Source do not show SIRS, except for one they are mill news. The target is under developed and this material will benefit the target and improve visibility of the content. // Timothy :: talk 04:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I switch my vote; merge per this rationale. toobigtokale (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2024 (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 05:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banjax[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

They don't appear to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. There is some coverage, but I am not sure it is significant enough. It was found non-notable and deleted at AfD in 2006, when our standards for inclusion were considerably lower. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can get a consensus. Last AfD closed due to lack of participation. Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the band does not meet any of the notability guideline and Google Search was unsuccessful at finding any sources establishing notability (also sources I did find which were not reliable referenced a different band that is currently active) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 7 February 2024 (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!} 23:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while I got results for them on newspapers.com (also available though the Wikipedia library) all of it was WP:ROTM from local papers of band playing in the area soon and a few charity events, there's nothing to establish notability. Shaws username . talk . 01:17, 15 February 2024 (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 Titan Publishing Group. I'd appreciate it if editors wouldn't merge or redirect articles before AFDs are closed. It means that editors who come to the discussion later can not see the article in the shape it was when it was nominated and it can greatly influence the outcome. But, as far as I know, this is a preference, not a policy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titan Magazines[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable imprint of Titan Publishing. Appears largely written by conflict of interest author. IgelRM (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a merge/redirect to the parent company would make more sense than deletion here.★Trekker (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, merge into Titan Publishing Group? IgelRM (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article is unlikely to be retained - merge/redirect is the equivalent of delete - I have already merged the information in this article into the main Titus Publishing article to ensure that the salient content from this article is not lost to Wikipedia. Therefore there is now no need to retain this as a separate article. Rillington (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with Titan Publishing Group in order to retain information and as a better alternative to deletion. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekiel "Easy" Rawlins[edit]

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

This article doesn't appear to have a sufficient amount of general real-world information. Most of this article is just 16 sections of fictional in-universe information. Grapesoda22 (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question The nomination only talks about the current status of the article, which is not the decisive critereon for deletion according to WP:ARTN. So was the required WP:BEFORE search done, and if so what was the result seeing that e.g. Google Books and Google Scholar searches provide a lot of hits? Daranios (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added some information from a 1995 article in The Independent, in addition to the refs already present from CNN, The New York Times and The Hollywood Reporter. Of the Google Scholar listings that Daranios mentions, this one seems especially strong — an 11-page article about the character in The Kenyon Review. I agree that the article definitely needs improvement, but AfD is not cleanup. Enough sources exist (see WP:NEXIST) for this subject to be notable. Toughpigs (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are enough sources discussing the character himself that a reception/analysis/etc section could easily be developed that would allow it to pass the WP:GNG on his own merits. On top of that, this article is essentially also functioning as our article on the book series as a whole, which is an unquestionably notable book series. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources found which establish notability of this topic. Having not received an answer I have to assume the nomination is flawed because it ignores the WP:ARTN policy and persumably skipped WP:BEFORE. Daranios (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per Toughpigs's findings. TLA^tlak 02:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The "Easy Rawlins" books are probably better known than Walter Mosley himself. Per Rorshacma above, our article essentially covers the entire series. The character is also widely discussed in coverage of the 1995 film version of Devil in a Blue Dress. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2024 (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 New York University Tisch School of the Arts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasserman Award[edit]

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

Cannot find any significant coverage on this topic, and the only source cited in the article is a 404. popodameron ⁠talk 21:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Awards, and New York. popodameron ⁠talk 21:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the 404 in the article is a primary source, and the only meaningful secondary coverage I could find was one IndieWire article, which isn't enough. Even without a search, removal seems reasonable; I can't imagine many cases where a student film award is notable, even at a top film school. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since redirecting seems to be preferred per the relisting comment, I would support New York University Tisch School of the Arts for the target as the most specific parent topic that doesn't have its own notability concerns. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New York University
🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 09:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect either to First Run Film Festival where it's already discussed, or to New York University Tisch School of the Arts since the festival may also be non-notable. hinnk (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are 3 different suggested redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No new participation after two relistings has me closing this as No consensus. Maybe a future AFD (way in the future) will result in a more decisive outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Nazir[edit]

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

Article about a film and YouTube series, not properly referenced as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to pass notability standards for films or web content. The only claim of notability being attempted here is that it exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself in the absence of sufficient media coverage about it to pass WP:GNG -- but this is referenced overwhelmingly to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as its own website, IMDb and/or the episodes themselves on YouTube, and what precious little it shows in the way of third-party coverage is very, very short blurbs that aren't substantial enough to pass GNG all by themselves, along with one citation (duplicated as two separate footnotes for no apparent reason) which appears to be here solely to create the false impression that this has coverage in an academic book so long as you don't actually look at the source to discover that it has absolutely nothing to do with this, and just happens to coincidentally mention a completely different Nazir in a completely different work.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have much, much better sourcing than has been offered. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Websites, and Ghana. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources on the page indicated some notability. I've added more. Primary sources can be removed or not, but this is more a matter of cleanup, as secondary sources exist.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are indicating notability, when every single footnote in the entire page (even after your additions) is still either primary or unreliable? Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. What sources? Answer: GhanaWeb or Pulse among other things. And I cannot see any reason to consider GhMoviefreak unreliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 14 February 2024 (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 06:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nerm[edit]

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

This article about a DJ is not supported by independent sources. It is currently referenced to radio programmes listing, event listings and an interview, not all of which mention Nerm. I have not been able to find better sources to add - I have added another BBC programme listing and two articles written by Nerm. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The article has been heavily tagged for years. Tacyarg (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 8 February 2024 (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, 14 February 2024 (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!} 23:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jul (Korean Bow)[edit]

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

Probable WP:HOAX, couldn't find any relevant sourcing whatsoever. Prodraxis _(talk) 22:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Prodraxis _(talk) 22:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Possibly a mistranslation / misspelling of 절 on Wiktionary? Shazback (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not for that reason. This doesn't appear to be a WP:HOAX, as it's just a misspelling of the Korean word for bow. The article for bowing already exists, and this article is just giving advice on how to bow.

Crystalholm (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced article, probably not notable for a separate article, and not a plausible redirect. Ben Azura (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bowing. On the Bowing page, there is a sub-section called 'In China', the Jul article could become a sub-section called 'In Korea'. 三葉草 San Ye Cao 05:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge which was an opinion recently suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless someone writes something sourced on Bowing for us to redirect to (in which case, do ping me). This is completely unsourced and so is not suitable for merging. -- asilvering (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2024 (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 radio stations in Wisconsin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBQR-LP[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to exist outside of FCC databases. Fails WP:SIGCOV ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 22:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Wisconsin. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 22:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in Wisconsin: this alternative to deletion as an ((R to list entry)) is about the best that can be done with an unsourced, never-sourced article about a relatively-new radio station. How this lasted nearly five years before finally being taken to AfD is beyond me (an identical creation today would, at best, probably be shipped to draftspace/AfC within weeks); even the old NMEDIA's overpresumption of notability still required reliable sources (a 2021 RfC established that there was no wider consensus for NMEDIA being anything more than an essay that provides advice as to how GNG can be met; this station comes nowhere near that). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the list a little more and believe WIWI-LP and WMWG-LP should also share the same fate, whatever the decision is. --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 16:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of radio stations in Wisconsin I've barely heard this station (since its signal range is limited to the Interstate 41 corridor in Milwaukee's western suburbs), and it's owned by Brookside Baptist Church (which I only know since I glanced the station's RDS when I heard it two weeks ago); outside its obvious use to carry the church's services, it seems to broadcast a classical format resembling that of WFMR (Milwaukee), which was a perpetually-moved classical format in the area. It doesn't even have any known website and isn't mentioned on the church's website, so redirection is the best course here. Nate • (chatter) 01:38, 15 February 2024 (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!} 23:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weberton[edit]

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

Played in 1 cup game in 2009 then disappeared from professional football. I can't find any evidence that Weberton (not to be confused with the hundreds of players called 'Weverton') passes WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Japanese Wikipedia lists the clubs that he played for but I can't find any decent non-database coverage, even when searching in conjunction with his former clubs. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – According to ogol.com.br [6] he had no notable spells at any club. It includes a spell at Corinthians, but I didn't find anything about it. Svartner (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Online, WP:CIRCULAR and no WP:SIGCOV for WP:ATHLETE at the moment. TLA^tlak 02:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The consideration regarding whether the subject has enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG was responded to with the source assessment, and arguments for deletion or merging did not properly respond to or refute the source assessment, so there is consensus for keeping here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twomad[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)

Delete (edit: or Merge with Zoombombing) WP:NN He wasn't notable enough to have a WP article when he was alive 2 days ago - that doesn't change today now that he's dead. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 21:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Every third-party celebrity wiki I've found with a page on him ends up only citing his youtube and twitter accounts. There's a few articles on his SA accusations, but I wouldn't touch them as they haven't met WP:BLPCRIME. There's really not much to write with here. mooshberry->talk; 22:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean its a little bit of wishful thinking assuming that they're going to site high quality sources. There have been several mainstream and quality sources referencing him in the past, those could be used here. MarkJames1989 (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia, and it seems like I see a lot of articles with information I find of use for me getting nominated for deletion. I don't even care if there is one paragraph in an article because in my opinion, information is information, and Twomad is no exception. Carnival200 (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being new, you should probably give a read to WP:NOT andWP:BLP1E. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. There are plenty of times in which I've tried to find information on an individual with a deleted WP page -- only to look up the archived version and find exactly what I'm looking for. Perhaps WP should consider amending its deletion policy. Webmaster098 (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly WP isn't a fandom, so we can't just have barely notable information on here. I'm sure you both are aware that there is a couple youtube/social media specific fandom sites out there?

You both should spend some time looking at our notability guidelines, WP:WEB and WP:BIO both apply in this is situation. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 11:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pointing out that he did have a few news coverages even before his death- mainly surrounding his Zoom bombing series and live streams^[1]. He was notable enough to appear on TV few times.^[2] At the very least he has his own KYM page^[3]. I think it's relatively safe to say he broke the public sphere of relevance and is probably notable enough 7dn (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed MarkJames1989 (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A blog, a YouTube video describing trivial coverage in BBC (he isn't mentioned by name) and Know Your Meme do not count as reliable sources or an indicator of notability. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only coverage Twomad received were minor mentions in the BBC and a few other news sites, a cameo does not make someone notable for a Wikipedia page if that was the case my father would have one for starring as the background actor in some no name movie that one time. InternetEnigma (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only real significant coverage in WP:RS has come about today because of his apparent death. Not much more than the odd passing mention otherwise. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There were many articles and notable sources covering him long before his death. Including mainstream sources, like BBC. I vaguely remember his article being much more detailed with sources in the past, however I must be misremembering. Regardless I think the article should be kept, extended, and updated. Does a persons death negate their notability even if it is only being revived because of their death? Notability has nothing to do with being alive. MarkJames1989 (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither does death. The fact that someone died does not suddenly make them noteworthy. Noteworthiness is achieved by what one does when they are alive. Granted - how someone died could be noteworthy in and of itself - but that too does not stand the test here. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 22:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refuting that argument, isn't it logical to argue that an individual with no degree of notability wouldn't be covered by publications and so using his alias. Assuming twomad had absolutely no degree of notability, why would publications use the title "YouTuber twomad dead at 23" and not "23-year-old found dead by overdose" Célestin Denis (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a subject is noteworthy by publications for one event doesn't immediately mean it's notable enough for Wikipedia. TappyTurtle (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just checked the article and it's low-quality. There are not many reliable sources. I think it is something that shouldn't have its own article. Plus, twomad isn't notable for anything he was just a shitposting troller. Autograph84 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the low-quality article should be an indicator that it needs to be updated. And including all the stories, allegations and rumors can make people decide what they think is the case. It can’t just be one sided because that will lead to conflict online where people who have already heard the allegations and people who already supported Twomad argue about how the article is incorrect because it doesn’t align with their opinion which is a result of reading many other opinions. 92.39.195.160 (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still, twomad isn't worthy of anything for him to have an article and again there's little reliable info about bro. I just say add him in Deaths in 2024 and call it a day. Autograph84 (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've moved the article to draft space. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should've waited for consensus before moving to draft . Regardless, I will be updating the draft with more information and sources. I understand that the current article was not up to Wikipedia standards but I was actively working on the content before you draftified it. I am confident this subject can pass WP:N and will continue my search for sources. Célestin Denis (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the question of "no reliable sources" existing before death could currently be disputed by this South Korean article by JoongAng Ilbo:[7] Célestin Denis (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His sexual abuse allegations were also covered by the Daily Dot which used to be considered reliable until 2022 switching over to a no-consensus as of now: [8] Célestin Denis (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP/WP:BDP isn't a wait and see thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I’ve said this before but he lacks notability to have his own Article he only ever made small cameos on the mainstream news back during the Zoom trolling days which isn’t notable enough to be considered for an Article, a worthwhile comparison is the Vtubers Froot And Veibae who had an entire dedicated section on the BBC yet are still not notable enough to have dedicated Articles. The Article itself is an incoherent mess and fails to mention pretty much anything he was known for on the Internet (Ex: Goodnight Girl, Zoom Trolling, Hasan Beef, Abuse Allegations, Etc.) which notably most of these don’t have reliable sources discussing them which furthers my view that he isn’t notable enough for an Article. InternetEnigma (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The Article itself is an incoherent mess and fails to mention pretty much anything he was known for on the Internet" Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia in which ANYONE can edit, right? Can't somebody just mention those and save the edits? "Notably most of these don’t have reliable sources" Knowyourmeme exists. NoahMusic2009 (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NoahMusic2009: Somebody can edit the article and click Save, but they'd probably be reverted quickly. Information included on Wikipedia has to meet some policies and guidelines, such as being verifiable based on reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Knowyourmeme is a fun site, but it is user-generated (i.e. anyone can edit) so it is inherently unreliable for our purposes. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 03:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on a lack of notability, the article should be deleted. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources aside from a single event and the article is based almost entirely on unreliable sources. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is of bad quality, and was only made because he died. Simply not notable enough to warrant its own article - just go to Wikitubia or something. qw3rty 06:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay i get the idea, but i feel he can be the objection to this ruling. Mainly because of the huge response this has been getting, especially all the dog-piling (rightfully so, guy was a huge pedo). I suggest not for a deletion, but instead, a definite retooling. I do agree with the fact the article in question is poorly done and definitely needs a lot of fixing to do. He has a decent enough following and impact, that a page could be in place, however it is built upon haste Bruh32123 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bruh32123 Sorry, but no. There isn't a single person or topic in a million universes that's exempt from the notability requirements. Even pulling the "ignore all rules" card, you'd have to provide a genuinely compelling, flawless argument on why he should be the exception. So far, your argument looks like a "right great wrongs" type. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly that's fair, I just wanted to put my two cents into it.

There's definitely plenty of issues with it Bruh32123 (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seeing as how a new article was created to replace the drafted version, I feel compelled to repost these two sources that might get us somewhere. In addition to the ones pointed out above, this scholarly article writes about his content in several hundred words, and this NY Daily News (reliable per WP:RSPSS) piece reported on his death alongside aspects of his career. Not officially voting yet, however. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again - just because someone is mentioned in a publication does not mean they are noteworthy enough to garner a WP article. I've been mentioned in RS more than a dozen times - yet the only appropriate WP pages I should ever have is my talk & personal pages. This guy simply fails to meet the test for notability, and wasn't notable enough to have a WP Article when he was alive. That does not change now that he is dead. WP is not a collection of obituaries. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picard's Facepalm 1: If you actually read the first source, it's quite disingenuous to say he's only just mentioned. It's a clear example of WP:SIGCOV from before his death. And 2: that "wasn't notable when alive" argument isn't as convincing as you think it is. When it comes to people in creative fields especially, a person may get little if any coverage about their life and career until the moment after their death. In that coverage, reliable outlets may write about their life in such detail that it contributes to their notability beyond just a WP:BLP1E context. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per above, fails general notability aside from subjects expiry. 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was known for popularizing "zoom bombing" and his collaboration with online creator Belle Delphine. He had a decently large social media following particularly on Twitter and Youtube. NoahMusic2009 (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for the "zoom bombing" claim? sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beemer69 See source table below. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Per the findings of Célestin Denis. But it's a weak keep because there aren't a lot of sources on Google News before 2024. Not even his "Good Night Girl" meme was mentioned outside of Know Your Meme before his death. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 14:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article (and most news coverage) appears to mainly focus on twomad's death, which does not make him notable enough for Wikipedia. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per comments by Green Star Collector. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 15:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The sources provided are mostly unreliable or WP:UGC, and what little coverage I've seen in reliable sources seems trivial and lacks the WP:SIGCOV we'd need to demonstrate notability. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here that I would also be fine with a selective merge to Zoombombing as an ATD if there's any content worth saving. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: article fails WP:RS, WP:GNG, subject was only notable for his passing. I have seen very little coverage before his death and most coverage for his death is not mainstream. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A pothole can have a Wikipedia article but a guy that had over 2 million YT subs cannot? I'm sorry, I didn't watch his stuff nor was I aware of each and every move of his but I was aware he existed. So was the internet and there were articles and notable sources on him before his death. It's not that hard to look over page 10 on Google's "News" section. Anuchikibrikiivdamke (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you that a specific pothole is a pretty ridiculous item to have an article about - unlike the topic at hand, it did pass WP:N - albeit for all the wrong reasons, lol. Storied by the NYT, CNN, NBC, TWP, CST, the AP, Business Insider (really? c'mon man), CBS, Axios, and WFLD... all listed in WP:RSP. Yes it is a sad state of our society when a pothole (or a pope chip hat, for that matter) is more notable than a human being. But that should also be a pretty clear qualifying indicator too.... "is [X] more notable than pothole or potato chip?. In this instance - that does not at all seem to be the case. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 17:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ~~Since people have said that Twomad's death is notable,~~People above have said that there are more sources for twomad's death than that of twomad himself, we could move this article to Death of Twomad or Death of twomad, instead of deleting. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that? How was his death notable, exactly? He apparently overdosed. ODing is not a notable method of death. Having a YT channel does not make one notable, either. Is WP to start creating articles for every Joe that has a YT channel and ODs? C'mon... --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 17:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge."

this should be WHY we keep it. wiki is meant to help people find info on topics, including youtubers who arent as socially relevant as they once were. there are pages on here that havent been touched in years and are more obscure than twomad, but they should stay because wiki is an encyclopedia that helps the people who want to learn about a certain topic. twomads death isnt the only notable thing about him, he was pretty important in the youtube sphere for a bit. he has been trending on twitter with 300k tweets and his channel was sizable enough to be known. THATS why his death is notable. not because he was some random bad dude who just happened to have a youtube channel and overdosed on drugs, but because he has over a quarter of a million tweets on him, was a popular meme figure for at least a year or two, and a youtube channel with more subscribers than the population of north macedonia. BobLavaBot (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I will say yet again - he apparently wasn't notable enough to have a WP article when he was alive. That does not change now that he is dead. ```` --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 17:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't perfect. I'd be absurd to assume that it had an article for everything considered "notable." The fact that the article didn't exist previously shouldn't stop it from exisisting now. Chelk (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the only thing that has changed is the fact that they died - it absolutely should stop it. Dying other than by notable means doesn't change the fact that it wasn't notable before. It is pretty obvious that "being a YouTuber" and "being a streamer" didn't make him notable up to 4 days ago. Being a dead one still doesn't. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Articles are kept because their topic meets the notability guidelines, not because it exists. TappyTurtle (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I'll rephrase the !vote in a little bit. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EVENTCRIT, deaths are usually not notable, particularly when the cause of death itself is not unusual. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom: twomad has evidently not been mentioned in enough actual sources to warrant an article. Overdosing while playing Overwatch does not make someone notable, and I don't see that his death in itself is notable either. Put his death in the Deaths in 2024 article, sure, but I don't see it as being any more noteworthy than that. DarkRevival (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a general reminder, having a large following on any social media platform, on its own, is not proof of notability nor justification for a Wikipedia article. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, especially taken into consideration that followers can be bought.

I have taken a look at his Twitter/X for example he has barely 200 interactions on most of his posts while having 566K followers and a few hundred K views (which may also have started mostly because of his unfortunate passing).

On his YouTube a lot of comments and such only seem to be from after his passing went viral (again, a case of "high views and subscribers but little interaction").

I don't want to accuse him of buying his views and subscribers but I'm giving extra arguments as to why followers != notability. FinlayDaG33k (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This! --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 17:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails GNG and ANYBIO. Maybe check back in five years to see if there was real coverage on subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same happened with Etika 2601:405:4881:B730:6DE2:3859:8CB1:41CE (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Twomad was met with various controversies and news articles about his online meet trolling videos and his harassment towards the K-Pop fandom. CityLord92 (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep / merge to draft - Seems to have lasting enough coverage, but not demonstrated on the article. NAADAAN (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep / draftify - It is poorly written and sourced rather ineffectively, however, that can be fixed. The bigger issue is the lack of sufficient sources. I would say it is probably too early to delete this article. His death gave more coverage to him, however, I am skeptical that it is enough right now. I think WP:DRAFTIFY may be in due here, at least for the time being considering he did not die that long ago and more sources could cover him in the (unforeseeable) future. Not0nshoree (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete Death doesn't establish notability, and the article follows suit with mundane content like "Sedik achieved growth and popularity online, accumulating millions of subscribers and views on multiple accounts on YouTube, as well as other social media platforms such as Twitter". Yeah, no. Only three sources: two of his death and the other his own YouTube channel. Being a shitposting idiot dying of an overdose doesn't automatically make him worthy of an article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Draftify, and a fairly passionate one at that. This article is not mainpage ready, not by a mile. But Sedik was a fairly big name on YouTube round about 2020-2021, which isn't terribly long, but the idea that he is only noteworthy because of his death is incorrect. IIRC we had the same discussion with Technoblade in 2022, a major Youtube name who didn't have an article in any form until his death. TwoMad certainly wasn't at the level of popularity that Technoblade was, but I think he still meets the bar of being notable independent of his death. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This discussion is getting out of hand from both sides of the spectrum. To get us back on track, I compiled a list of potentially usable sources posted here and on the article itself. You may disagree with my assessment of the sources, but let's at least talk more about the sources.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:PantheonRadiance
Technology and Social Change - August 2020	Created by researchers at Harvard University that have no affiliation with Twomad.	Looks peer reviewed to me	Discussed in several paragraphs about his ZOOM meeting content - at least one hundred words. Plus if a scholarly source analyzes your content in this manner, it is definitely a sign of notability, if only partial.	✔ Yes
The JoongAng - December 6, 2021	Not affiliated with Twomad.	Appears as a reputable South Korean newspaper.	Main topic of article, discusses aspects of his content - in particular his relationship with the KPOP community	✔ Yes
HotNewHipHop - February 14, 2024		Per WP:A/S	Main topic of article, notes him as a controversial content creator and discusses aspects of his career prior to death rather than just the death itself. EDIT 2/21/24: Another source has been written about his career.	✔ Yes
NY Daily News - February 14, 2024		Per WP:RSPSS - arguably one of the few sources I'd trust reporting on him right now.	Not only does the source report on his death, but also touches a bit upon the allegations and his behavior prior.	✔ Yes
The Daily Dot/Passionfruit - July 26, 2023	Reporter researched and analyzed claims independently of the creator.	~ Although considered fully reliable prior to late 2022, no consensus now emerges. At the very least, it should be considered reliable for internet culture.	Ignoring the BLP allegations, there's a lengthy section describing his career in multiple paragraphs. You can easily cite this as SIGCOV of his content without including those allegations.	~ Partial
The Indian Express - February 15, 2024	Unaffiliated with Twomad; facts also look written/verified by editorial team	Per WP:INDIANEXP	Also writes about his content and life before passing.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Still not officially voting, but I will say one last thing. We can argue all we want about whether we feel this info about him is significant. But at the end of the day, it doesn't change the fact that these outlets clearly found him significant enough to write about him. EDIT 2/16: Found extra The Indian Express source, adding to table. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PantheonRadiance's table. There are at least over 3 reliable sources here that are not (completely) related to his death, and thus makes him notable. Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 20:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources that PantheonRadiance has dug up could be used to write a yes, relatively short, but perfectly fine and verifiable article which meets WP:GNG. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 20:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several RS are all that are needed for something like this to be notable, and there appear to be more than a few. Also, just from a purely 'duh' standpoint, this person was clearly more notable to the general public than +90% of sports figures who have their own pages; if random cricketeers from the 1910's can have Wikipedia pages, obviously social media influencers with multiple millions of followers can, too. Joe (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"several RS are all that are needed for something like this to be notable" - that's really s t r e t c h i n g the requirements & spirit of WP:N quite a bit. Just because someone has RS content about them doesn't necessarily qualify them as being notable. Neither does "being a YouTuber". I am mentioned in over a dozen RS, and I have 2 YT channels - and I sure as hell am not notable, nor do I warrant a page on WP outside of my talk & personal pages. If this is the criteria of notability that you have - then I presume you are also in midst of creating individual articles for each of the McDonald's and Little Caesar's franchisees out there? They have had more impact and influence than cricketeers and twomad put together. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 21:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable secondary sources about some of McDonald's or Little Caesar's franchisees, I'd be all in favor of making an article about them. I'm not sure I'd agree that "They have had more impact" than twomad or any given random cricket player, or how one would measure that, or why one would think that a certain amount of 'impact' was a requirement for notability (in the Wikipedia sense of the word), but I'd still support it if shown the right RS. Heck, if there are RS about you in particular, you may be more notable than you think, my good editor! Perhaps we should have a page about you. I'd have to see the sources first, of course, before commenting one way or the other. Joe (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBIO. The RS report his death due to the circumstances of the event, without being able to previously demonstrate the notoriety and interest of his career as an internet content creator. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can't have a serious discussion about lack of sources or detail in this article when it's unnecessarily extended-protected (looks like it wasn't even autoconfirm beforehand?) Doublah (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that only new editors to the project are going to be able to contribute anything worthwhile to the article in question? That's a pretty bold statement. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many non-new editors on Wikipedia who do not have over 500 edits, myself included. Page protection policy is such that protection is only to be used where proved neccesary, which is not the case here. Doublah (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can empathise that the discussion seems to trail into the territory of subjective assessment of the worth of this person rather than whether the sources substantiate notability. I think the problem is that in line with things like WP:NARTIST there is insufficient WP:SIGCOV about his actual contribution as a streamer to his medium to warrant an article. Assembling significant coverage about his death, views on certain topics and allegations about him puts the cart before the horse in assuming a personality is notable because people talk about them. In terms of what this person is apparently notable for, streaming, is there signficant coverage that evaluates and discusses that? There doesnt seem to be. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel as though his notability exists only in the current short term, perhaps either himself or his death may warrant a page in the future, but as of now he is only notable in the short term because of his sudden death, the majority of his appearances in news articles etc are only in relation to either his death, or his "zoombombing" in 2020. AlfonsoBourbonCream (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Based on the findings of other editors, there are some good sources that document his career as a streamer, even if said sources are primarily over his passing, mainly through PantheonRadiance. That's not to say that I'm personally happy with the current sourcing but there is a degree of significant coverage and Twomad is far from being not notable to warrant his own article. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being a streamer or tuber does not make one notable. WP:BLP1E --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Picard's Facepalm: If he were a streamer with say, 0 significant mentions on any major secondary sources then I would agree considering that just about any other streamer could have an article with that logic. However, my main point is that some existing sources document his career well enough that go beyond just his death. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He wasn’t notable enough to have had an article before his death and dying is not itself noteworthy enough to warrant an article. The article itself is also low quality and poorly sourced. Archimedes157 (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Célestin Denis. Also, my two cents: we have articles about ministers and heads of political parties of pacific micronations whose total populations rarely exceed 50k people, which is equiualent of the population of the average village in my country, yet for some reason an influencer with millions of subscribers is not relevant enough for this encyclopedia? come on, boomers, give me a malarckey or however u say that Kasperquickly (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The guy was also on mainstream news, so I'd say we should keep the article. Chelk (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To extrapolate that a streamer/tuber is as/more noteworthy than a governing entity (regardless the size) gives a pretty frightening reflection of the state of society, the direction it is heading & what is deemed as "important". You do know that there is an entire world outside of the 5 inch screen you hold in your hand, right? Oy. I will say that I am glad that your comment is documented here. Hopefully WP is still around in another 20 or 40 years - cause I want you to set a reminder in your google calendar to come back and re-read what you wrote there... and see what you think & say about it then. ThisAintABoomerThing --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the same principle applies. A minister of a small country is still an important leader in that country, and what they say or do in that context is largely newsworthy no matter that the country is small. Having millions of subscribers doesn't carry any comparable weight or responsibility. FPTI (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about article X is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PantheonRadiance's table shows clear notability here, I would be inclined to say delete but I think this table of references is enough to show at least minor notability. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest, there are even bigger YouTubers based on subscription/views that don't have pages, and to me this feels like there are arguments for both keeping and deleting it. I especially agree that, as an article, it's not really useful in its current stub state. A person's death (especially if it's not extraordinary in and of itself) should not make someone more notable. If it was legitimately rejected before, maybe it should be rejected again. For a case where a person's death made them more notable, I would point you to Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, which otherwise probably didn't meet the threshold for notability prior to her death (and was still being debated even immediately after her death). Ultimately, I'm not entrenched enough with this corner of YouTube to make an informed vote. I can see the case for both sides.Electricmaster (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to point out that there is a LOT more to the situation than just the fact he turned up dead one day. I think, once there's enough information on the ongoing criminal case against him and Twomad's criminal record, the article should be updated (with veritable sources) to reflect that. Twomad isn't notable just because of his death, I'd argue he's notable because of the huge amount of controversy he was mired in during his life. (See Jameskii's Twitter posts for a rough rundown of what I'm talking about here - Twomad was a prolific sexual predator and, in addition to falling into drug addiction, reportedly tried to have people killed for investigating his ongoing criminal activity.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGooseWithAPhone (talk • contribs)
Keep per PantheonRadiance's source table; I think that establishes a fairly clear notability. Generalissima (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Zoombombing: He appears to be notable only for (1) Zoombombing; (2) pulling controversial stunts; (3) being accused of sexual assault; and (4) dying of a drug overdose. Number 2 is mostly WP:MILL coverage, 3 does not meet the notability guideline for perpetrators, and 4 is an all-too-common tragedy that does not confer notability. Thus, the most appropriate alternative to deletion is to merge information about his Zoombombing to that article, giving it appropriate weight. I also agree with Beemer69 and Chris troutman. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on-board with this. Updating my position on this to delete/merge. Thanks for bringing this point & option up. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 16:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per source analysis by PantheonRadiance. He has been mentioned in multiple sources independent of his death. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Zoombombing: As voorts noted above, a mention on the Zoombombing article is certainly in order. Beyond this, while I see some coverage from reliable sources, I do not feel that the coverage is sustained or significant enough to warrant a standalone article, as this individual only appears to have recieved sporadic coverage regarding involvement in Zoombombing, his death, and allegations of ilegal activity. The latter two are not enough to establish notability for a standalone article, and I believe the connection to Zoombombing is better explored in that article than in a biographical article. As Picard's Facepalm has mentioned above, the existence of coverage in reliable sources does not necessarily make an person notable enough to have their own article. In this case I think that this individual is not remarkable enough, nor has he received enough sustained and significant coverage for a standalone article. Ethmostigmus (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand Twomad is already notable enough outside of Zoombombing, and as PantheonRadiance has demonstrated, there is multiple quality sources that mention Twomad. As for the and Expand part, this is because the only section in this article outside of the introduction happens to be his death even though he was for sure notable during his lifetime, regardless of if it was good or bad notability. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 16:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Edited to fix red link. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 15:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Zoombombing. I don't see evidence of notability in the brief death notices or other ephemeral media documenting Twomad the human, as opposed to the brief social media phenomenon. Nangaf (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate keep - per GNG, given the amount of coverage, definitely meets notability now more than before (in which he arguably, already did, but now certainly does), and source coverage is about him. I don't see a reason to delete, and see reasons to keep. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the general consensus given to youtubers and streamers. Weak notability isn't enough, and I don't think the article will be expandable like some above are suggesting with current verifiable and reliable information. We are not a fandom. I'd personally say leave it 3-6 months and reconsider making this article, when the whole situation dies down. Also, not many of the sources add new information to this, so really theres like, one 'source' about his death, per WP:BASIC "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other". --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 11:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Merge with Zoombombing. I'm fail to see what else there is to expand, beyond the four points that voorts mentioned. If something big (besides those four things) is posthumously discovered then we can always create a new article. But, today, I'm not seeing it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source table. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per the listed source table. I feel he has enough notoriety to have an article, even if short. zodiahk (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per PantheonRadiance's table. IncompA 04:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Zoombombing per Voorts. Rusted AutoParts 04:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Expand, as per PantheonRadiance. Roasted 5:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep per PantheonRadiance --Chicken4War (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to coverage in reliable sources that meets the notability guidelines. Sahaib (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there is WP:SIGCOV here. Pantheon's source table shows this. There's a lot of tabloids/blogs covering the late twomad, sure, but there ~~isn't~~ is sufficient WP:RELIABLE sources simultaneously. Merging to Zoombombing is just out of context, this subject is, clearly, known for a lot more than zoombombing. TLA^tlak 02:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now The article was just created so let’s see if there is more reliable sources.TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough reliable accredited sources to draw from. UlyssesYYZ (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is the last comment I'll post about this discussion and probably Twomad in general. First off, I found another source from HotNewHipHop that retrospectively covers his life in significant detail. Not only does it discuss his career separately from the Zoombombing meme (in fact it isn't even mentioned in the source), but it demonstrates, even if only partially, that his career was defined by more than just one trend. I updated the table once more; unless there's any doubt about its validity, I believe it's safe to assume it contributes to GNG. In light of that, I secondly think that a merge to Zoombombing is no longer necessary nor appropriate. Ignoring the arguments that his life is inherently too run-of-the-mill or trivial to deserve an article (which in my opinion read more like subjective "I don't like it" rhetoric that speaks more towards Wikipedia's bias against internet culture than anything else), this source among others proves that he has had some demonstrable influence that goes beyond just one event he pioneered. He may not have been as popular as other similar creators, but that's beside the point. From his meme-based content to his controversies, there's enough info one can reasonably extract from these sources which prove, if nothing else, that his life is worth remembering. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the table provided by PantheonRadiance above checks out. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am seeing coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events:
- Twomad's death:
- Allegations of sexual assault:
  1. PassionFruit
  2. PopTopic (Australia) 1 2
- Assorted coverage of his career:
  1. HITC 1 2 (Belle Delphine partnership)
  2. Space Invaders: the Networked Terrain of Zoom Bombing (talks about his relationship with zoombombing)

If this individual were alive today, I would think that they'd probably be below WP:GNG. But he's not, and the significant coverage of him and his death pushed him over the line from being on the margins to being a notable person. There is enough in the sourcing to write a brief and neutral encyclopedia biographical entry about him, and much of the coverage doesn't seem related to zoombombing, so I think that this article's subject is best covered in a standalone page rather than being merged to a topic on a particular social phenomenon that doesn't quite cover him fully (and seems to frankly be a minority of the coverage about him). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:05, 22 February 2024 (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!} 23:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bizkaia Boggarts[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Non-notable sports team for non-notable assocation/league. Unsourced except for a Facebook post since 2016. Neither have articles on the Spanish Wiki. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Europe, and Spain. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What it does have is a Basque Wikipedia article: https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizkaia_Boggarts_Quidditch_Kluba
However, this quidditch team does not compete in a setting that yields independent coverage about the subject. The only things supporting this page are social media and primary sources. So even the 27th place in the https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europako_Quidditch_Kopa doesn't help. Delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find any coverage in reliable, independent sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2024 (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. Coverage present with GNG met. The article can be improved from the references provided. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faroe Islands Handball League[edit]

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

Unsourced article tagged since December 2023, multiply draftified. Nothing particular to this league returns on my BEFORE but I'm okay if someone with better google abilities in different languages is able to find coverage. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 19:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Handball, and Denmark. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 19:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the main sports leagues of a small nation. Try searching Burn-deildin as a league name together with the national internet extension site:.fo. Geschichte (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Handball is at the Faroe Island the most popular sport. Many articles about the league exists. [9] 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2024 (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 Public image of Joe Biden#Age and health concerns. I'll leave the status of a redirect to the regulars at WP:RFD who are well-versed in policy surrounding redirects, neutral as well as non-neutral. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ageism against Joe Biden[edit]

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

The article looks to heavily fail to meet policy on neutrality (WP:NPOV), instead it reads almost like an opinion piece. Numerous claims look to be backed up by singular sources and/or "making sources fit the narrative". Can't move to draft due to existing rejected draft. Suggest this be deleted (relatively quickly given it relates to a living person). Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Politics. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete/merge this clearly falls within Public image of Joe Biden and having its own article is WP:UNDUE - there isn't a separate article regarding racism towards Obama which was much more egregious. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep WP: NPOV does not mean false balance. Medical experts have widely described the claims as baseless. WP: BLP also requires this. Article meets WP: GNG. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only medical experts who can actually make an assessment in a clinical setting literally work for the White House and their statements are super polished. LegalSmeagolian (talk) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medical experts have widely described the claims as baseless

Exactly two medical professionals are cited for this claim. That is nothing close to widely.

Russian propaganda and members of the far-right have made multiple ageist attacks and age-related conspiracy theories against Joe Biden. is nowhere near sourced enough (the only source having been for believed Russian interference in 2020) to make the claim.

Psychologists, political scientists, economists, historians, and other medical experts have described these ageist claims as forms of disinformation and misinformation was sourced by a single article with an interview with older voters, so is completely WP:OR.

That is woefully failing policies on NPOV, for this very slanted article that read like "these are conspiracies that have been dismissed by professional associations", and is doubly concerning given the article is about the abilities of a living person. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Public image of Joe Biden#Age and health concerns: There's already some coverage of the topic there, could just add the decent bits of this article to this existing coverage (and redirect there) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 20:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above is fine, this is an extension of that idea, not otherwise widely discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The article fails WP:NPOV and the content spread is one-sided, but in the main article, it can work. Conyo14 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I rarely support deletion, but the current title is not acceptable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the title being unacceptable, but WP:NOTCLEANUP. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 21:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might not be cleanup, but think it'd have to be a merge without leaving a redirect because of how openly non-neutral the title is. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
good point. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are allowed to be non-neutral; see WP:RNEUTRAL. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are allowed in extremely limited circumstances, namely according to the reasons listed which revolve around verifiability of a common non-neutral name. "Ageism against Joe Biden" is a made-up descriptor by an editorialising user. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what RNEUTRAL says (and whether this should exist as a redirect is really better to discuss at WP:RfD, assuming this gets closed in favor of deletion or redirection). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
uh, it quite literally does:

"The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms."

So the article of this title very much doesn't fall into the acceptable realms of "non-neutral redirect" given "Ageism against Joe Biden" isn't a common term or substantiated in reliable sources. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point 2 clearly allows situations similar to this. Again, though, this isn't really a debate for AfD. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It allows it but it's still within the confines of the non-neutral term being a common subject or term used in reliable sources. That doesn't apply here for "ageism against Joe Biden". Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as noted above. This is a weird niche of anti-Biden disinformation, and it does not seem to warrant standalone coverage. Zaathras (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Public image of Joe Biden#Age and health concerns per HotMess and others above. Fails WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above SKAG123 (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to suggested page, or Delete. As it stands, the page appears to fail NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing useful here.Riposte97 (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2024 (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. GNG and SIGCOV met with the recent additons. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voorweg RandstadRail station[edit]

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

Quite a large page written entirely without refs. According to WP:V all unrefed claims can be deleted, which would mean deletion. Seems like there has been plenty of time to verify, now is time to WP:TNT until the page can be rewritten according to the policies of en.wiki JMWt (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Netherlands. JMWt (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion rationale here is completely incorrect - an unsourced article can still be notable, and there's nothing in the article that is contentious per WP:V. Notability runs with the topic, not with the content on the page. I haven't been able to find anything which shows this is clearly notable yet, though, because of all the station spam you now get when you search - showing notability will likely involve the Dutch papers. SportingFlyer T·C 16:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to WP:V

Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it.

and

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

and

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. JMWt (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having an unsourced article has never been a deletion rationale. You still have to make sure the topic is not notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nevermind the V criteria, this isn't a notable place. Not an historic structure, no coverage that I can find (only five hits in all of Gnews, only mentioning the place). Not even meeting GNG at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added references that show notability of the station and provide sources for the information provided.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ruud and the GNG. While this is currently a light rail station, it has mostly served as a railroad (i.e. heavy rail) station. In NL, these will be notable, unless only a stop. gidonb (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the newly added sources show that the topic meets the WP:GNG, please? JMWt (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Trouw is a reliable, independent source. I added an article in Zoetermeer Nieuws, a local paper. The other references are information sources. A challenge is to filter the large number of hits. The Google search "Voorweg" AND "Randstadrail" gives almost 5k hits, most of which are not very useful to show notability. The reason why I put up a fight for this one is that the article RandstadRail is considered of mid-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains and the almost 100 related articles, mostly about its stations, are part of it. Delete one and you might as well delete 100. A lot of hard work has been put in these very informative articles. I´ll do my best to keep them. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion neither of those are in enough depth to meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your opinion is clear and respectable. However, the relevant notability guideline is this one. The question is if enough attributable information exists to write a full and comprehensive article about the station. i believe so. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the relevant standard for inclusion of all articles on en.wiki is the WP:GNG in particular WP:SIGCOV. The expectation generally is of WP:3REFS, which you clearly have not yet offered in this discussion. JMWt (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic clearly meets the standard for inclusion you mention. I added another reference, this one from Omroep West. The guideline about stations is very useful. As @Gidonb pointed out, Voorweg is a historic railway station and thus presumably notable. Lightrail stations, as Voorweg is at present, may merit a standalone article if enough attributable information exists. Even interesting quirk or odd bit of trivia may help to establish notability, according to the guideline. Deletion of an article about a station is not an option. I rest my case. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing in the article is just there to get this across the line. SportingFlyer T·C 15:21, 16 February 2024 (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!} 23:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stanikzai[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. It's entirely possible that sources exist in Pashto, however it's long now beyond the point where the contents of the page either need verifying or the page needs deleting until someone can rewrite it with references JMWt (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for the possibility of an Afghan adding sources for the page Delete. Okay, 7,5 years is a lot. Just delete at this point. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 16:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Believing this article will get sources after 7.5 years is nothing short of wishful thinking. Beside that, this article is a vandalism magnet. As far as I can see, their are no sources available over this group. The Banner talk 16:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 16:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ross McNicol[edit]

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

Not much on the page to show how the subject meets the notability criteria, nothing much else found JMWt (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable artist; hits are social media, sites to buy artworks, then peter off... Nothing in Gbooks GScholar; name is too common, you get hits on all kids of people. Lack of sourcing and not meeting notability criterial for artists or authors. Oaktree b (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability per nomination. I am not finding anything useful in WP:BEFORE. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject received mentions in coverage of the opening and closure of The Wallis Gallery, including a 2007 mention that "McNicol was recently taken up by Hugh Allen, who works with Damien Hirst" [10], but I am not seeing sufficient to demonstrate that any of the notability criteria are met. AllyD (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – In sources that meet WP:RELIABLE and WP:INDEPENDENT, there exists only passing mentions. TLA^tlak 02:42, 21 February 2024 (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 withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (chat • stalk • they/she) 15:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of multinational companies with research and development centres in Israel[edit]

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

List is hyper-specific. There isn't any RS coverage of "multinational companies with research and development centres in Israel", or any other country for that matter. This kind of list would serve better as a category. – Howard🌽33 15:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Howard🌽33 15:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I have now found out that there is indeed mainstream coverage of R&D centres in Israel.^[1]^[2] – Howard🌽33 15:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination, if that wasn't clear. – Howard🌽33 15:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now also found out that Forbes contributors are not RS. So I withdraw that one as a source for my claim.

However, I have found a passing mention by an additional RS here.^[3] – Howard🌽33 15:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Mizroch, Amir. "530 multinationals from 35 countries innovating in Israel". Forbes. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
^ "Multinationals Open More Than 20 R&D Centers a Year in Israel". Haaretz. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
^ Shamah, David (2013-04-16). "65 years on, Israel is top choice for tech by multinationals". The Times of Israel.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Man Alive (band). Consensus that this is a valid WP:ATD; notability for the target article can be discussed at a separate AfD if need be. ^Complex/_Rational 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Work in Progress (album)[edit]

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

Lacking significant coverage. I think this would be fine as a redirect to Man Alive (band). Annwfwn (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Man Alive (band) I couldn't find anything to suggest the album is notable, but when the search terms are both both common phrases it's plausible for something to have been buried. Shaws username . talk . 13:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A redirect would have made sense, however, the band isn't notable either. It has already twice been deleted on Hewiki. It's little more than a random church band. That said, not vehemently against a redirect either, as currently it exists. I am sure that the band will receive a seperate debate. gidonb (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Man Alive (band). Notability of the band should be assessed in a separate AfC. Broc (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2024 (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 05:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omni Group of Companies Pakistan[edit]

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

There is no independent coverage about this group/company. Coverage is related Fake accounts case and we have an article already. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Most of the sources are related to Fake accounts case. LibStar (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Habib[edit]

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

Claims to notability:

1. Won a forecasting award several times - Looking into this, I'm struggling to find any secondary coverage that indicates this is something that people in the finance industry actually care about. It's produced by a specialised consultancy Gartner-style, but barring some extra indicator of relevance, I don't see that it has attracted significant media attention. The business/finance industry is full of promotional awards and pay to play nonsense, so my default take on this kind of thing is to discredit them unless there's specific evidence of secondary coverage.

2. Wrote a book - there is just no coverage of the book, and it is self published.

3. Had a reasonably successful career in entertainment, including some production credits and 2 minor named roles. I'm not sure that's enough though for WP:NACTOR. His production credits on Rock of Ages is looking very dubious - for example, here's an independent RS source that mentions most of the important people on the show and doesn't mention Habib - https://www.playbill.com/article/russell-brand-confirmed-for-rock-of-ages-movie-filming-begins-in-may-com-178224. I'm struggling to actually verify him as a "lead producer" on the show.

This is, of course, not withstanding the very very obvious WP:UPE issue which drips from the whole article in spades. BrigadierG (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails AUTHOR with no book reviews I can find and only where to buy the book... I don't see news about the Broadway involvement and he seems to be a "subject matter expert" in the business world [11], [12] but all I can find are just him talking about various things to other people. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing these concerns, we’ve made wholesale changes to Mr. Habib’s page to make it more compliant with Wikipedia standards, including more citations and less promotional tone. We’re happy to make further edits to any sections as required to ensure this page is not deleted.

In terms of these three specific comments, we have included multiple reference links to support Mr. Habib’s achievements and past experience in the mortgage and finance industries.

Regarding Mr. Habib’s book, Money in the Streets, it is not self-published. It was published by Savio Republic (an imprint of Post Hill Press) in 2020 as noted on their site (https://posthillpress.com/book/money-in-the-streets-a-playbook-for-finding-and-seizing-the-opportunity-all-around-you) as well as Amazon and other bookseller sites.

Regarding Rock of Ages, we’ve included the link to the Playbill where Mr. Habib is featured as a Producer (https://www.playbill.com/playbillpagegallery/inside-playbill?asset=00000150-ac7c-d16d-a550-ec7ec6af0004#carousel-cell198619) and also a link to this Wall Street Journal video where Dow Jones Newswires reporter interviews Barry Habib regarding his role as a Producer of the show (https://www.wsj.com/video/investing-in-broadway-rock-of-ages/D86CF4A5-7099-4A44-897B-5518DC6F3E3D). Shellymbs (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews can't be used to prove notability. Book sellers don't prove notability. Who is this "we" commenting above, as it now appears to have unpaid promotional editing involved, which is a further concern... You must declare any conflicts of interest please. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Are you being paid to edit this Wikipedia article? WP:UPE BrigadierG (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I reported User:Shellymbs along with the large number of other socks/UPE SPIs over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amalloyz and they have all been blocked. BrigadierG (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Oaktree b's reasoning. Pretty clear AUTHOR fail. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2024 (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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Onuorah[edit]

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

Not meeting ANYBIO, GNG or SIGCOV. BoraVoro (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Dance, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Known for her influence to another person? I can only find stories about her (?) husband that passed, nothing about a musical career. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I wrote this article in a novice way since I am having mental health challenges. Obviously passes WP: GNG. Has featured with notable Nigerian musicians and even WP: CREATIVE, Since she is widely known for promoting the Igbo dance, Egedege. Otuọcha (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage in Opara, Ruth (2018). "We Can Sing It Without Doing It: Gender Contestation Among Nigerian and South African Women in Music" (PDF). American Music Research Center Journal. 27: 77–120. Queen Theresa Onuorah was born in the 1940s, and is a traditional female musician from Umuorji village in Anambra state, South-Eastern Nigerian, West Africa, where she is well known for her self-created Egedege dance. ... As one of the oldest of her siblings, and recognized for her creativity, she became the leader of the group and taught her younger siblings. In 1974, she led her family members who later joined the group to the recording studio where they recorded most of their songs including Ijele Elubego. After the recording, the accompanying video became popular and was much appreciated in Igbo land, being one of the few indigenous music videos in the 1970s. ... Onuorah used her music to revitalize the traditional folk and dance music of the Umuorji and Anambra. She gained a reasonable number of fans due to her performances of Igbo folk and traditional dance in South-Eastern Nigeria.

Other sources include:

"Ndi Otiegwu Igbo kpọtụrụ akpọtụ na 90s rue afọ 2000". BBC News Ìgbò (in Igbo). 2020-09-11. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
"Igbo Traditional Music: Ikperikpe ọgụ, Atịlọgwụ, Egedege na egwu ọdịnala ndị ọzọ e ji mara ndị Igbo". BBC News Ìgbò (in Igbo). 2022-08-27. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
Alake, Motolani (2021-10-29). "Here is why Larry Gaaga's 'Egedege' is trending [Pulse Editor's Explainer]". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 2024-02-14.

For an African musician most active in the 1970s, there is a strong WP:SYSTEMICBIAS against the availability of online sources, so the fact that we have these is a strong indication of notability. Jfire (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: BEFORE suggests WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't commend the lack of BEFORE done by the nominator. There are books and analysis concerning Theresa Onuorah and her works. Best, Reading Beans 09:37, 21 February 2024 (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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yakov Kazyansky[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was a weak keep with low participation in 2008, when standards were lower. I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, or a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A google search for his name in Russian gives several hits. At least 3 of these are about his role in organising the first ever performance in the USSR of Jesus Christ Superstar, which would probably be worth adding to the article, if only as a curiosity:

Local/regional coverage: Yarkipedia: КАЗЬЯНСКИЙ Яков Лазаревич (NB: article is signed by author, it's not a wiki); Severni Krai (regional newspaper): Антиреалист Казьянский и его религия, same article scanned from the paper version of the newspaper [13] (NB: author of this piece is presumably the author of the article for the local encyclopedia); Yaroslavl region section of the Union of Artists of Russia (short bio on account of one of his performances): Концерт №2 цикла "Музыкальные среды" (NB: possibly falls under promotional, but I think it sort of helps with notability); Rybinski dnevnik (local news portal): В Ярославле отметили 30-летие российской премьеры рок-оперы «Иисус Христос — суперзвезда»; Yaroslavl edition of Komsomolskaia Pravda: В России рок-оперу «Иисус Христос Суперзвезда» впервые увидели в Рыбинске

National coverage: Article/interview published by LIFE (NB: unrelated to Life (magazine)) (Russian Как "Иисуса Христа — суперзвезду" ставили в Рыбинске в 1989 году

Participation in international-ish events: Prostokvashino festival (North Carolina) [14] (NB: event seems to cater to Russian-speaking diaspora groups in the US)

This list is non-exhaustive but I think it might be enough to establish notability and probably allows for the writing of a decent enough article (it probably needs updating, too - he seems to have recently moved to the US). Ostalgia (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 14 February 2024 (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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCBT-LD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This television station does not contain the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. This subject did survive a 2019 AfD, but that was under a much different (and looser) standard of notability for television stations than what we have today. Let'srun (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 14 February 2024 (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 diplomatic missions of Tanzania. ✗plicit 14:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Tanzania, Beijing[edit]

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

Previous AfD result was redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Tanzania, Moroni. This article is based on 1 primary source so does not meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Tanzania, and China. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania per previous AfD discussion. No sources found. Brachy08 _(Talk) 05:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 14 February 2024 (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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KVHF-LD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. This subject survived a 2019 AfD, but that was under a much different (and looser) standard of notability for television stations than what we have today. Let'srun (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Les Cyclopes[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Agree with the hatnote that the notability standards are not met JMWt (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. JMWt (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2024 (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 23:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt College Quirino[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and does not indicate claim of notability. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find good sources. GBooks and GNews Archives just produced one passing mention --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bear in mind the change of name from "Roosevelt Memorial High School". There appear to be more mentions under that name, although I haven't yet found more than passing mentions. Still plenty to look through though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of its faculty was co-author on a text book, mentioned on the back cover, but I couldn't find anything more than directories other than that, under either name. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Manchar[edit]

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

Very poor sourcing, almost all of the sources listed are unreliable. Firstly, the creator of this article, Ronnie Macroni, has a history of creating poorly sourced and written articles, inundated with religious aggrandization, copyvio, and Google Book snippets to erroneously bolster the Sikhs' military achievements. He has been warned of such behaviour before. Two of the only reliable sources, Hari Ram Gupta p.9, as well as the Encyclopedia of Sikhism, only marginally discuss this siege with no mention of the result or casualties, rather it focuses on a likely embellished anecdote of Ranjit Singh-[15]. The article almost certainly is using Google snippets of Gulshan Lal Chopra and Gokul Chand Narang's works rather than a thorough perusal of them, the former is certainly a Raj era source as is Narang's given that all his publicly available books were written between 1910-1947. [16]. Duggal isn't a historian, Lepel Henry Griffin is a Raj era source, Manish Kumar's work is self published and Patwant Singh is not a historian. Fails WP:RS and Wikipedia's notability standards. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 14 February 2024 (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. Aoidh (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debjani Modak[edit]

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

Non-notable TV actress. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NBIO. Could not find any sources apart from the promo interviews and film-gossip websites. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 21:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Television, India, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and West Bengal. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 21:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am sorry but she had various lead/significant roles in notable television works and therefore appears to meet WP:NACTOR. Some of the coverage on the page and available online is in TOI and MSN, for example, which, without being top rate journalism, is a bit above promo and gossip in my view. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the TOI and MSN sources - see WP:TOI and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. None of the sources on the page are definitely 'reliable' (and I'm struggling to find any potential sources for her which aren't puff pieces), which is still problematic. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note about the Times of India: The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The creator just added many references, from YouTube and other Un-RS sources. Agreeing with the nominator, the subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:NACTOR -- QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 09:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does she fail WP:NACTOR when she had significant roles in notable television productions? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, We might not know the standards and we would request you to keep the page altering any information which you think is not relevant to Wiki norms. We would also like to cooperate with you if you have any questions related to the Content. Kindly, Please refrain from deleting the Page as you all know we have did our ROI and spent lot of time in maintaining the Page. Hope you understand on humanitarian ground. Thanks for understanding. Renu214 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Renu214 Do your colleagues also maintain other pages? If so, could you please tell us which ones? Also, you must declare the connection as per WP:PAID policy. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have not got an opportunity to interact with other wiki authors/users. I am not a pro in this. Learning step by step everyday on editing. Your valuable suggestions are always helpful in learning. Renu214 (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a perfect opportunity for you to interact with other wiki authors/users (in fact, you did it just then!). You also said that you would like to cooperate with us, so please kindly do so - by doing these tasks which you have a duty to complete:

Firstly - Have you read WP:PAID, WP:COI, and WP:PEW? Your talk of 'colleagues' implies that you are editing wikipedia on behalf of someone - and you are required to disclose who you are editing Wikipedia for. Please follow the instructions in WP:DCOI and WP:PAID.

Secondly - Please ensure that your colleagues have read WP:PAID, WP:COI, and WP:PEW (and follow the instructions in WP:DCOI and WP:PAID) as well.

Finally - Please confirm when you have completed these tasks.

It is vital that you complete these tasks, regardless of what your employer may say on the matter - as the policies of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation have priority over your employer's instructions here on Wikipedia (and failing to follow them could lead to quite a bit of negative press for yourself and your employer). Thanks for understanding. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 12:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! To share light, I am not doing this for any one's sake. writing is my passion and i have not created this page to be honest. I am just updating the content based on my research. Since, you said this is the perfect time to get valuable information from you all expertise writes and wiki editors, how can i add my newpaper cuttings beacuse they are from 2013 and at that time online archiving was not found. Please help. Renu214 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, apologies for completely misinterpreting your word choice. Anywho, to answer your question - use Template:Cite news (newspapers) or Template:Cite magazine (magazines/newsletters) for those non-online sources.

I would also suggest quoting the important bits of info from these offline sources in the quote parameter of the citations (like |quote=important words from the article go here), think of it as archiving the important details where everyone can see them.

For example,

((cite news |last=Doe |first=John |title=Thing happens at place! |work=The Placeholder Times |date=1970-12-31 |page=39 |quote=The thing happened at place yesterday))

. Hopefully that helps :) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 17:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
One paragaraph promo database bio	1. "Debjani Modak Biography by nettv4u". nettv4u.com.
Promo about series, annouces subject has joined, nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	2. ^ "Actress Debjani Modak has replaced Pavani Reddy in 'Rasaathi' Jan 27 2020". The Times of India. 27 January 2020.
"Exclusive Interview" fails WP:IS	3. ^ Jump up to:a b "Actress Debjani Modak Schooling details in news channel interview". NTV News Interview.
Duplicate of #3 above	4. ^ Jump up to:a b "Actress Debjani Modak Schooling details in news channel interview". SumanTV Entertainment news.
Does not mention subject, article is titled differently from ref, may be incorrect link	5. ^ "Debjani's Bengali Movie 'Knock Out' debut 2013". Times of India.
Interview Fails WP:IS	6. ^ "Debjani's ANDHRA JYOTHI TS 21 OCTOBER 2021 newspaper interview". NTNB NEWSPAPERS.
Nothing meeting SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	7. ^ "Colors Bangla launches 'Aponjon'- a Tale of love and revenge, 26th June 2015". The Times of India. 26 June 2015.
Mill enterntainment news about quiting a project.	8. ^ "Actress Debjani Modak quits Tamil daily soap 'Vaanathai Pola' 26th April 2023". The Times of India. 26 April 2023.
Duplicate of #8 above	9. ^ "Actress Debjani Modak quits Tamil daily soap 'Vaanathai Pola' 26th April 2023". The Times of India. 23 November 2023.
Film trailer, nothing SIGCOV about the subject.	10. ^ "Knock Out official theatrical Trailer HD 2013". YouTube.

Sources #10-54 in the article are promo refs about media they have been in. Nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Notability is NOTINHERITED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 03:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

clarification - it appears that sources 8 and 9 were different sources (different URLs, editor probably forgot to edit the `title=`), but source 9 is just a gossip listicle anyway (published by WP:TOI). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the sources on the page are either outright promotional or are covered in WP:NEWSORGINDIA promotionalness, and I'm struggling to find a properly reliable source about her myself. Granted, she has had top billing roles in a couple of serials, but I'm not sure how notable those serials are, and, ofc, WP:NOTINHERITED, so probably doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as explained in the chart above, nothing is usable as a source. I don't find anything we'd use either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might be a beginner but there are so many pages out there who does not have proper reference added but still no complaints from wiki so called editors and users. I don't understand this partiality sorry to say but I am little bit biased with the kind of proceedings happening here. As experts, someone will expect the required changes to be made to the page encouraging the fellow authors/writers but its completely out of my knowledge, why would somebody is so particular to delete the page. respectfully, please do what is according to the norms and what you think best and kindly, keep the norms and do it for all the pages and Thank you for your time. 146.146.7.1 (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2024 (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 Syntagmatarchis. BusterD (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antisyntagmatarchis[edit]

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

Seems to be just a translation Chidgk1 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Greece. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In Greek letters, the name is Αντισυνταγματάρχης. The Greek article el:Αντισυνταγματάρχης doesn't have any references either, but if you google Αντισυνταγματάρχης through Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, you might be able to find some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - poorly sourced but we normally have article about military ranks. Llajwa (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My preference would be to merge, but there are enough articles on military ranks around the world to justify this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to lieutenant colonel or Hellenic Army. This article has zero sources, and we don't have evidence that the topic is materially distinct from the English translation (so Greek sources discussing it won't be helpful unless they actually address the difference from a lieutenant colonel in English).

JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To Lieutenant colonel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Lieutenant colonel~~ (see below): The namesake on Greek Wikipedia is linked with lieutenant colonel, so the real question is if this "term" merits a standalone article. The article is and has been unsourced for more than 14 years, so there is nothing to merge. I've looked for some sources, but most are glossaries or other kinds of sources with very superficial coverage (WP:NOTDICTIONARY). A merger should be relevant, when some editor finds WP:RS "now". If so, please ping me. Aintabli (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Syntagmatarchis. Sorry to muddy the waters here with a new merge target, but I noticed that other Hellenic Army ranks redirect to a Modern Use section like Strategos#Modern use. Obviously there's no ancient version of lieutenant colonel, but there is Syntagmatarchis (colonel). -- asilvering (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More input is clearly necessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Syntagmatarchis or, if that isn't appropriate, Hellenic Army. Ben Azura (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Syntagmatarchis: I believe any unsourced content should not be merged, but in order to help form consensus, I don't mind changing the redirect target. Aintabli (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Pettey[edit]

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

Autobiography moved twice from draft with out being reviewed, fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional and vanity article created by a SPA against advice to do so. Subject meets none of the criteria of NMUSICIAN, sources are a mix of primary, press releases and casual mentions. Ravenswing 12:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a promotional article as per WP:PROMO that is relying on mainly promotional sources. Not passing WP:GNG at this stage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above remarks about SPAs BrigadierG (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2024 (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 14:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanika Tekriwal[edit]

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

CEO of a non-notable charter company with 11 aircraft, no notability except one notability built upon another, and so on. User4edits (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, India, and Madhya Pradesh. User4edits (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Don't the listed honors and awards establish notability? Zanahary (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary From what I see, they are niche awards, not any notable NGO/Government award such as Magsaysay Award, Women in Business Award or from Orders, decorations, and medals of India. Also WP:commonsense, subject and her "awards" derive notability from founding a 10 aircraft charter company. User4edits (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: recognised by UN, BBC, and Indian Government, none of which can be called "niche". PamD 09:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comment above, she's recived international coverage, to me meets WP:GNG Shaws username . talk . 12:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes GNG as enough sources available with detailed coverage. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 13:00, 14 February 2024 (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 07:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of association football clubs by average attendance[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Listcruft? New list that has an unclear criteria and is maintained by individual sources, and not a collective listed source. Would appreciate other opinions as I'm not sure. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Criteria is the same as List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues. Why should there be a collective source? Is this a reason for deletion? Why deleting this and not lists for leagues???--Afus199620 (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Lists. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally agree with the nomination, and the inclusion based on All clubs with an attendance of over 35,000 are listed. That's a fair amount of clubs globally, not a very thought out list. Govvy (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is wrong with this inclusion and not any other? Could you be more specific? Why not thought out? Very lazy argumentation. Afus199620 (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a usefull list for many people. "All clubs with an attendance of over 35,000 are listed" could be replaced with "Clubs with an attendance of over 35,000 are listed". As far as I know, almost all clubs seem to be included that should be in this list. The information seems to be reliable, here you can find all the information: https://www.worldfootball.net/attendance/eng-premier-league-2022-2023/1/ and https://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm and https://www.transfermarkt.com/statistik/zuschauerrangliste for example. 141.0.29.182 (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are all just football stat sites. They do not show WP:SIGCOV of this topic, which is what is required. WP:NOTSTATS applies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we've had many AfDs on this type of list before and all have resulted in delete due to essentially falling foul of WP:NOT. See here, here, here and here. I don't see any reason as to why this would be any different. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page looks fine to me, I’d say let’s keep it. 2A02:A44A:ABBA:1:64A2:E757:FF10:5E30 (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2024 (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 07:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of English Premier League club nicknames[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Listcruft? I'm unsure if this qualifies as a new relevant list. If anything it should be expanded to include all professional English clubs. Would appreciate other people's opinions. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, United Kingdom, and England. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary, as all club infoboxes now carry club nicknames, so this is a superfluous list. Nate • (chatter) 17:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, but people can goto the club articles to see this information per club, I don't see a point for a list. Govvy (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. If by any remote chance the article is kept, it needs to be renamed, as the name of the competition is not now and never has been "the English Premier League" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:FANCRUFT. Svartner (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't football fandom, this isn't an encyclopedic list. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2024 (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. BusterD (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal ASE[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Most of the articles sources are not reliable (see Genius and Sportskeeda) and/or closely connected to the subject. Also seems to fall under WP:BLP1E, with the sole event potentially violating the WP:BLP guidelines. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 14:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 14:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fuck nah i dont want this to be deleted, fuck u talkin about???? 104.10.143.25 (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He has been the subject of many news, although this is short, it definitely helps sum up WP:SIGCOV with this which is in depth. I would absolutely lean towards weak keep after performing a full research. dxneo (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refocus to being about the music video. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refocus absolutely, this guy. MvA BoB (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep, also the Verbal ASE#controversy section needs some cleanup. Jothefiredragon (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC) Redirect to Hazbin_Hotel#Fandom, as it's more concise.Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 04:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah dawg, this isn't April Fool's bro. Qadri223 (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to either Hazbin_Hotel#Fandom or Synapson
Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 11:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hazbin Hotel#Fandom or Synapson, per Jo the fire dragon. It's worth mentioning that one of the sources cited at Hazbin Hotel mentions that the link between the subject of the article & the controversy are tentative, and then reports the source as "per KnowYourMeme" (see WP:KYM). Most sources on the article appear to be from 2015 to 2018, and a more recent source from 2022 mentions him in passing. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 04:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am on my phone and unable to edit as needed - please take this as a delete rather than a redirect. No significant coverage or notability outside of the meme (which, according to the more reliable sources such as the Mary Sue) are still alleged. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. It fails notability, and the only reason it's here is becouse of the recent meme/controversy. Also, I disagree with the notion too redirect him to Hazbin Hotel. He isn't officially associated with the show, and he made videos of dozens of cartoons, so why should he be linked to this specific cartoon. And yeah, yeah, meme, 50k on video, bad taste, and so on. Nobody will remember that in a month. I don't think redirect is needed.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATA#CRYSTAL

Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 14:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything needs a redirect to everything. If his article gets deleted, I don't see why we need to keep redirect becouse of a meme that's definitely not notable at all. Also, there's a difference between a "forgotten" celebrity, and a meme stoping being revelant after a week. And in this case I'm referring to the fact the meme won't be remembered, not the artist. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it as draft. Although it may have violated WP:BLP and WP:Notability (people), we could turn it into a draft article, then, the Peer review may conclude whether the article should be an article or failed at the first place in the draft process. Qadri223 Talk to me like a true conservative my contributions to the Wikipedia 04:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are promo, interviews, name metions, and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. I don't think there is a good redirect target, but no strong objection if a consensus emerges for a target. // Timothy :: talk 14:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TimothyBlue, please see the first comment for "in depth" coverage. dxneo (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: [17] very interesting, but it is a video monologue from the subject. Fails WP:IS. I would like to keep this article, but I can't find sources and can't just vote keep because ILIKEIT.

[18] is very promotional for Hazbin Hotel. // Timothy :: talk 19:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: According to the article, Verbal ASE has held jobs, performed publicly, collaborated with other artists, been contracted for gigs, and runs a mid-tier YouTube channel. Your average successful artist, in other words. While making it in the art world is admirable, it is not notable. Verbal ASE deserves no article. Dieknon (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does there exist a rule which indicates how many times an XFD can be relisted? - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 06:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Run of the mill Youtuber who only received coverage because he spent too much money on a Hazbin Hotel video. WP:BLP1E. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This seems like it falls under WP:BLP1E. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 21:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is consensus that the sources presented in this discussion are sufficient to establish notability for this article's subject. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ľubomír Pištek[edit]

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

I'm not into ice hockey yet but currently nominating this article for deletion due to lack of sufficient coverage. The closest things to WP:SIGCOV are Sport Aktuality.sk and Nový čas. Another news source I could find was a divorce with his wife after 15 years; being/having been in a relationship is not a sign of notability. Other websites mostly come from blogs. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia is an unsourced stub, which might help copy over English Wikipedia if it wasn't. No news have been released on him over a decade, either. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Slovakia. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The guy played over 400 games. It would be jaw-droppingly staggering if there were no sources. We shouldn't be looking strictly online Geschichte (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found [19], [20], [21], these and more in Czech and Slovak, but I am not sure how 'in-depth' they are.18abruce (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources above are all heavily based around interviews, with very little secondary content (and/or are unreliable tabloids or blogs).

JoelleJay (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its worth noting that this guy played over 400 games in leagues that formerly satisfied WP:NHOCKEY (before its removal); players previously in his leagues were notable for playing one game, now this is 400 being considered non-notable... BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That participation standards have been deprecated is neither new, nor is it news. It's a bit late in the day to bemoan it. Either we need to come up with SIGCOV, or the article can be deleted without prejudice until such time as someone can write an adequately sourced one. Ravenswing 23:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that we should be very cautious in saying this guy's non-notable when he played in 400 games, considering that previously everyone would have been notable for one (i.e. its a stretch to go from 1 = notable to 400+ = non-notable). BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Weak Keep 400 games is a lot to play. However, there aren't any English articles on him that I can find. So if SIGCOV exists, it's likely going to be in Slovak. If they are shown, I will change my !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep? Its quite difficult to look for sources since I know nothing of either Czech or Slovak, but since it seems I'm the article's only hope I'll try. I seem to find several stories from Sport.SK, e.g. "Ľubomír Pištek's Slovak journey with Austrian hospitality", and others (another Sport.Sk piece), and then some coverage from Sportnet, e.g. 1 (2, 3), SportKy, idnez.cz, Cas, and a deadlink story from HokejPortal titled (translated) "Ľubomír Pištek will wear the HK Ardo Nitra jersey". While much of it is interview-ey and brief-ish I think it is probably enough for an athlete of his accomplishments, taking note of that fact that much of the coverage will likely be in offline sources and other languages. I agree with Geschhichte's point that It would be jaw-droppingly staggering if there were no sources considering that he played enough games to formerly be considered notable 400 times over. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Conyo14: Since you asked to be notified if any sources were found. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you, I have changed my !vote to reflect that, but still weak, as the sources are good but mostly mentions. So, maybe more will appear. Conyo14 (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY demonstrating WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more sources/content. Newklear007 (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep sources given above seem fine, not extensive, but enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per the WP:GNG and WP:HEY. The sources from Sportnet appear to contain some relatively in-depth coverage, while a lot of the coverage provided here is in interview prose or is not significant it is enough at least for a weak pass. Let'srun (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Flibirigit.--Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 02:25, 20 February 2024 (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 Olive Township, Decatur County, Kansas. BusterD (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vallonia, Kansas[edit]

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

Yet another post office, probably; there's perhaps a little bit more to this one on the maps and aerials, though searching produced naught but the Vallonias in other states and the genus of snails. Mangoe (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas. Skynxnex (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - I was unable to locate any source supporting this was ever a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was a tough one. User:James.folsom suggested this source. You'll see that some of the names listed at that source, are the same people in Vallonia Cemetery.

Also listed in the cemetery is Maurice Garland Foley. Foley's obituary said "he lived most of his life in the Vallonia and Kanona communities".

More people born in Vallonia.
A land transfer from four men living in Vallonia, Kansas. Interesting, the men's names are also on the cemetery list.
A wedding at a residence in Vallonia.
A funeral for a doctor who's family "lived in the Vallonia neighborhood for several years". --Magnolia677 (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It definitely was a populated place "https://sites.rootsweb.com/~ksdechp/directories/18841885gazdir.html". The local paper has regular mentions of goings on in the place. It's still known today according to the paper. Though some of that is because there continued to be school with that name. The bulk of the news articles are during the time the place had post office. I'm still researching. I'm almost Certain Uncle G will deposit a bunch of info here soon.James.folsom (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been neglecting Polk's for Kansas, given Gannett and Blackmar. Interestingly, Vallonia isn't in the 1904 Polk's. I don't doubt the rootsweb site, but I tend to be wary of transcriptions. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not clear to me that Vallonia was a town rather than just a name for the rural area served by that post office (and related functions like the cemetery). The cemetery is located in Olive Township, but the school is listed here as serving Roosevelt Township. Normally I'd say to merge this article about a rural gathering point into the article about the township it served, but it's not obvious to me which of the two it'd go with if it were merged into one. Leaning keep just based on that, but idk really
  Jbt89 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jbt89: If you look at this map, and switch the map to "USA topo", you'll see that the border of the two townships, Olive and Roosevelt, passes through the town and cemetary. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a reconstructed map, based upon computer data sets. It's not actually a contemporary original map. There's an original (Rand McNally) map in the belowmentioned Report that puts the Vallonia post office (which the Report states to be a post office) very roughly on the border of Olive and Harlan Townships. Interestingly, Vallonia disappears off the map (on page 111) and from the list of post offices (on page 116) in the next Biennial Report. Uncle G (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have it as a post office in Olive Township per the 1886 Fifth Report of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture. Gannett's 1889 Gazetteer does not have this at all, nor does Blackmar's 1912 Cyclopedia, supporting the claim that this was little more than a post office that closed in 1887, just as the sole good source in the article says, and that school. They'd have it if it were a town or a village.
For future AFD discussions which I know are coming for the Template:Decatur County, Kansas "unincorporated communities" and purported ghost towns, all of the Blackmar-verifiable post offices are in Decatur County, Kansas#Post offices.
Uncle G (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's an example of it being phrased as just a post office https://www.newspapers.com/article/oberlin-herald-post-office-or-town/139274290/. There are many more examples that phrase it as a place. Jbt89 point is valid, as the way these post offices were discussed in the papers makes it's hard to tell if they were in towns or not.James.folsom (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Olive Township, Decatur County, Kansas. Seems like this is the name of a short-lived post office and of a vaguely-defined rural region centered on that post office / cemetery. Olive Township best, though imperfectly, approximates that rural area. This place is not notable on its own. Jbt89 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've copied the single unique sentence from this article to the Olive Township article. It's fully redundant now.Jbt89 (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merger to township I've learned and shared alot about these post offices and the relationship they have with people. I've synthesized more about understanding how the newspapers deal with this stuff as well. Actual towns and cities in the 19th century are covered more extensively than these "postal communities". Examples are that a town will publish meetings minutes, public notices, town news, there will town clerks and other people mentioned in the papers. In this case as is with many others, they are mentioned in the paper in the form of letters from a self designated person. And maybe you see the occasional "Joe bob lost a valuable horse at Vallonia", They only say this because that post office is the only land mark that is universally understood, and it's where they get their mail. In one instance someone wrote in that the postoffice had changed names, and just like flipping a switch that persons letters were from the new name. This wouldn't happen if it it was a town.James.folsom (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Olive Township, Decatur County, Kansas. Given it's use as location in sources from the time the post office was extant a redirect rather than a delete makes more sense to me. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with that redirect too. Jbt89 (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Olive Township, Decatur County, Kansas, in case my position wasn't clear above. Jbt89 (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2024 (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. RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UKGameshows.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not inherently notable and doesn't align with notability guidelines at WP:WEBSITE. Only trivial mention in random blog posts and connection to a fake image. No real notability from third parties. ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Websites, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at those first two noms is a mirror into a time where we considered one source to be acceptable and the nom was packed with game show fans hardly arguing about its notability, but that WP:ITSNEAT. In 2024, the keeps look embarrassing, and this simply has no current-day notability at all. Half the in-article sources are circular references to the site, and we're still sourcing a YAHOO recommendation (that can't even be accessed because Yahoo is hardly in that field any longer and 404ed it long ago) from 2005 for N, which is in "Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in one game" territory. I hate deleting articles for websites run by a couple of people, but our standards have tightened up for good reason. Nate • (chatter) 01:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like Nate I also hate deleting any articles from Wikipedia because it means that people's efforts, which are voluntary, are deleted and their time has ultimately been wasted. However, we still have to find a balance and ensure an article meets certain standards and reading through this article it's a very difficult one to call, not least due to a lack of any reference for anything other than recognition.

One possibility here, if the consensus is not to keep it, might be to draftify, thereby giving those who see the topic as being notable enough for inclusion the opportunity to improve it by finding other independent references.Rillington (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria says:
Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:
- The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations
Sources
1. Holmes, Su (2008). Quiz Show. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pp. 18, 24, 74. ISBN 978-0-7486-2752-3. Retrieved 2024-01-31 – via Google Books.
  The book notes on page 18: "The established British website www.UKgameshows.com is a veritable celebration of the quiz and game show, but it still invokes the concept of originality as a criterion of evaluation. Endemol's rather short-lived Shafted (ITV1, 2001), for example, is lambasted by the site for being a 'checklist of features from more original and successful shows' ..."
  The book notes on page 24: "In contrast, the internet site www.UKGameshows.com, which provides information about more than 1,000 game show formats from 1938 to the present day, welcomes these newer strands of programming. It does not have to worry about the economic constraints of scheduling, and it explains that its 'definition of "game show" is wide-ranging, taking in children's television, traditional quizzes and panel games, lifestyle TV, reality TV and talent shows'. Its own criteria, on at explicit level at least, is more related to questions of national context: it excludes 'imported programmes' unless a British version has been produced. Yet it too has more implicit generic criteria for inclusion and exclusion which rest upon evaluative criteria."
  The book notes on page 74: "But as Hills acknowledges, one of the few spaces to offer a more evaluative recognition of quiz show aesthetics is the established British website, www.UKGameshows.com, designed for interested viewers and fans, as well as the quiz and game show industry. In the extensive entries for each show written by the owners of the site (Chris M. Dickson and David J. Bodycombe), we come across such comments as: ..."
2. Hills, Matt (2005). "Who wants to be a fan of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Scholarly television criticism, 'popular aesthetics' and academic tastes". In Johnson, Catherine; Turnock, Rob (eds.). ITV Cultures: Independent Television Over Fifty Years. Maidenhead: Open University Press. pp. 189–191. ISBN 978-0-335-21730-4. Retrieved 2024-01-31 – via Google Books.
  The book notes on page 189: "But, by contrast, ukgameshows.com anthropomorphically converts the show into a personality: ‘it' became 'arrogant', and 'insisted' on being on all the time. ... Although ukgameshows.com and its contributors are evidently aware of commercial forces, and of debates over ‘public service' versus ‘commercial' television, they do not a priori or consistently pursue economic explanations for the (sub)genres and texts they evaluate, instead moving in and out of discursive framings linked to notions of 'the commercial'. For instance, ..."
  The book notes on page 190: "The structure of ukgameshows.com also anticipates and imagines a range of priorities for its users. It promotes the report/manual How To Devise A Game Show, interpellating its users as wanting to produce as well as consume game shows. This indicates a sense, ... Furthermore, ukgameshows.com's first 'featured' link is 'Be on TV', which at the time of writing (28 February 2005) included 'Contestant calls' for a wide range of quiz/game shows. It should be noted that BBC programmes are, if anything, more in evidence here than those of broadcasters primarily and discursively defined as 'commercial'.
  "
  The book notes on pages 190–191: "This difference in symbolic and cultural power is very much recognized by ukgameshows.com. The site's contributors do not seek to challenge the hierarchical value of being a 'media person', but instead desire to cross the ordinary/media boundary in any manner possible, whether this is a fleeting movement within the industry as a contestant, a recurrent series of appearances on game shows, or an interest in devising a game show format."
3. "Playing the game. TV game show addicts can log on to a lively website that has all the answers and more". The Times. 2006-04-29. Archived from the original on 2022-12-08. Retrieved 2024-01-31.
  The review provides 172 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "As guides to the genre go, ukgameshows.com is deservedly the most popular. It has more than 1,800 articles, many of which can be found in the A-Z guides to Shows and People. There are items on auditioning for shows, their history and an annual poll for “Best Game Show of All Time”. ... Much of the site’s appeal can be credited to its resident scribe, Iain Weaver. As well as a guide to the coming week’s game show itinerary, his “Weaver’s Week” column is compulsory reading for those who have missed out on recent shows."
4. Dee, Johnny (2003-07-19). "UK Game Shows www.ukgameshows.com". The Guardian. ProQuest 245974738. Archived from the original on 2024-01-31. Retrieved 2024-01-31.
  The review provides 100 words of coverage. The review notes: "A great site for keeping abreast of breaking game show news (essentially what Clare Balding is wearing on Countdown this afternoon) and advice on devising and appearing on TV game shows."
5. Clarke, Sam (2003-01-25). "Webzone". Glasgow Times. Archived from the original on 2024-01-31. Retrieved 2024-01-31.
  The review provides 63 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "UK Game Shows: www.ukgameshows.com/contestants/index.htm. Put yourself in the hot seat with some of tellyland's biggest quizzes and game shows. Choose from National Lottery Jet Set, new shows, Under Construction and Brainteaser, as well as old favourites like Blind Date. The site is independent of any TV companies but carries an up-to-date list of programmes looking for contestant and full contact details."
6. Wright, Michael (2003-09-14). "Never surrender: Michael Wright finds Japanese endurance, half-baked ideas and graver matters - That's amazing". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2024-01-31. Retrieved 2024-01-31.
  The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. "The exhaustive history of British gameshows, collated at www.ukgameshows.com, requires equal persistence, and will bring a shiver of horrified recognition to anyone who remembers The Golden Shot ("Left a bit, right a bit... fire!")."
7. "Here's the Way to Set Your Sites on TV Fame". Western Daily Press. 2003-10-18. Factiva FWDP000020031020dzai0006i.
  The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "At UK Game Shows - www.ukgameshows.com- you'll find a whole section devoted to contestant calls for shows from Ready Steady Cook to Fort Boyard, with an A to Z of the most popular programmes and addresses to contact. "
8. "Finds of the Year 2005". Yahoo!. c. 2005. Archived from the original on 2006-01-11. Retrieved 2024-01-31.
  The text "Game Shows" links to http://www.ukgameshows.com/index.php/Main_Page. The page provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The page notes: "Game Shows: The absolute mother lode of British game show news, views and info. “I’ll have a P please Bob” (hilarity ensues)."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow UKGameshows.com to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following on from the above post, and assuming this can be included into the article, then it definitely should be kept. Rillington (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now added some of those independent references to the article. Rillington (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was torn whether to close as 'keep' or 'no consensus', or to relist. Cunard's excellent contribution was made 6 days ago, and the subsequent !vote is also to keep based on Cunard. However, prior to Cunard there were a few people (including the nominator) !voting delete or leaning that way. I think another 7 days will see consensus become clearer here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability has now been demonstrated. Cortador (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2024 (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. GNG and SIGCOV met with the recent additions. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Britt Richardson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Coverage exists, but is routine coverage on the subjects gold medal win at a Junior Worlds. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject is also a World Championship medalist for seniors, specifically at FIS Alpine World Ski Championships 2023 – Nations team event. The subject has also finished several times among the top 20 in the entire world, namely in World Cup events in 15th, 18th and 19th place. Geschichte (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Kasper2006 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The skier has received significant coverage as Geschichte has explained. --Kasper2006 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do have to locate the coverage though. For a contemporary world championship medalist in a somewhat big sport in an English-speaking country, that should be possible. Geschichte (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant coverage? There is no GNG for this subject. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found [22] mentioning the team bronze in 2023, [23] about the recent GS victory, and [24] includes the 3 top-20 World Cup GS finishes this year. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I upgraded the article. I would also like to point out that the article is present in 5 other Wikipedias around the world. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clearly a world-level skier, [25] [26] [27] [28] etc. Geschichte (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2024 (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. Aoidh (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Out of the Ordinary[edit]

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

Fails the requirements of WP:NALBUM. Has been lacking any sources since 2008 (WP:GNG). I have searched and can’t find any reliable independent secondary sources required to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada. Dan arndt (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beverley Mahood#Albums per nom. Jfire (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Beverley Mahood#Albums~~: Lacks independent SIGCOV The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per the new references provided by Donaldd23 and Nfitz. Looks like there are references with SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews in Waterloo Region Record [29], Ottawa Citizen [30], The Province [31], Winnepeg Sun [32] DonaldD23 talk to me 02:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in here with some publicly accessible links to the articles above:
— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the notable reviews above, the album was surely the impetus for her Juno nomination shortly after it's release. I really can't fathom this nomination. I'm not sure where User:Dan arndt searched, but it certainly doesn't seem it was the right place for sources from last century. Please withdraw the nomination. Nfitz (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, in answer to Nfitz's comments - the reviews of the album in the regional newspapers are not readily accessible or verifable as they require a subscription to access - I accept in good faith that they exist, however it would help the discussion to understand whether they are substantive reviews or press releases. Secondly statements such as "the album was surely the impetus for her Juno nomination" smacks of personal opinion, without any providing corroborating sources or references. Thirdly I have searched the web extensively to locate sources required to establish notability, but if you can direct me and other editors to where these sources exist then this would assist the ongoing discussion. So in answer I am not proposing to withdraw this nomination. Dan arndt (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would have helped, User:Dan arndt, if I'd included the reference I was going to add about a Juno nomination! It's very easy to find references in both Proquest and newspapers.com, which are accessible through Wikipedia Library; checking Wikipedia Library is really a must (especially for people from this era); see the instructions at WP:AFD - particularly WP:CONRED in WP:BEFORE about "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". While just searching the web might suffice for something released 5 years ago, it isn't enough for this. Normally if "regional" is tossed around in an AFD discussion it's because the coverage is from the hometown paper - which is certainly true in the dozens of articles that can quickly be found in The Record - which is a major paper. But it seems a bit of a stretch to also apply it to some of the other biggest papers in the country! Ottawa, Winnipeg, Vancouver! These are 1000s of miles apart! Another 1000 miles further east is Halifax - so here's a reference from the Halifax Daily News. The album's release got coast-to-coast coverage; and her Juno nominations mentioning the album made national papers and magazines, such as a lengthy piece in Saturday Night written by Don Gillmor and in the biggest national news agency (Canadian Press) which even uses the album's name as a pun in the article title. A decade later national pieces about Mahood still mention the album, such as in the National Post. Please withdraw this BEFORE failure. Nfitz (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While I am seeing sources for "Girl Out of the Ordinary", I would advise a bit of caution on taking them exclusively to refer to the album, as a single of the same name from the same artist charted in Canada and peaked at No. 10. There is some coverage of the album within a broader article The Record (D1, D2) and another in The Ottowa Citizen. But many of the reviews I can find are quite short (The Winnipeg Sun, The Province) with the exception of the one in The Record given above. I do lean towards keeping here in light of the broader sourcing situation and WP:NALBUMS#1, though I can't blame the nom for making this nomination—search engines indeed return very little. Some arguments above were made that the artist was notable and so we should keep this, but notability of music albums is not inherited per se from the notability of the individual who wrote them (see: That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article in NALBUMS), and passing mentions (even if years after the fact) don't contribute towards WP:SIGCOV. Still, the sources presented here and that I can find via newspaper archives are probably enough to get this over the hump. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:15, 22 February 2024 (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} 07:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rayongwittayakhompaknam School[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A Google failed to yield sufficient in-depth coverage from reliable secondary sources to establish encyclopedic notability. Additionally, the article is completely unsourced, thus failing WP:V and has been tagged for more than ten years w/o any significant improvement. Article was previous tagged for Prod (2014) but tag was removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Thailand. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that searches are complicated here by the language conventions in naming which mean the name of the school on this page is wrong. This should be "Wittayakom Paknam school" located in Rayong, or perhaps with alternate English orthography of "Wittayakhom paknam school". That still doesn't turn up much. "Wittayakom school" gets a few more including a couple of book mentions, but at this stage I am not sure if that is the same school. Noting this information now for the sake of anyone else conducting searches. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So "Wittayakom" is a type of (senior) school it seems. The name of this school is "Paknam school" in Rayong, also rendered "Pak nam" school. Under that name I find a lot more information. E.g. Google: [33]. I'll have to do some reading now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it the wrong way round; Thai language places modifiers after nouns, so you have to translate terms in reverse of the English order. "Rayongwittayakom Paknam" is the name of the school. It's a daughter school in Paknam of Rayongwittayakom School, hence the name. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I got that far, but Rayong is the place, and isn't wittayakom the type of school? But useful information that is is the daughter school of another with a page. I'll modify to merge on that basis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Witthayakhom (and spelling variants) is just a common suffix that's sometimes combined with the province name to form the name of the province's main government school; it doesn't carry any actual meaning by itself. Each province will usually have one or two government secondary schools recognised as the main school for that province; these schools often (but don't always) have the province name in their names. See below regarding the merge suggestion though. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's helpful. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I will happily move to redirect if a target can be found. ~~(ETA: Merge to Rayongwittayakom School)~~(ETA2 - new comment below). I have reviewed all the sources I can turn up. Wat Paknam school is a different school, but I think I searched thoroughly through all English language sources of Wittayakom Paknam school, searching all references to Paknam and Pak nam school. There are book mentions, and a few news paper mentions. Book mentions are directories, the newspaper mentions incidental (e.g. an Elephant race started at the school, but doesn't seem to have had anything to do with the school). In a pollution incident, 140 students at another school were moved to this school temporarily, and in this thesis paper[34], students from the school were studied. Schools are not inherently notable, and this is not enough to pass GNG. One major caveat is that I speak no Thai, and there may be more sources in Thai. If SIGCOV can be demonstrated with Thai sources, it would be a keep, but as things stand we have no evidence of SIGCOV, and certainly not in the article. If there is a page about Rayong schools, it could be redirected there. It could also redirect to Rayong, although that page currently says nothing about education. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to merge. As above, this is the daughter school of another in Rayong. They would sensibly be treated together, especially given the lack of sources for this daughter school. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think merging would be desirable. "Daughter school" here mostly just means that staff from the original school gave some assistance in the establishment of the school. Sometimes schools are named as daughters of more famous schools just for marketing purposes. In reality they're completely independent schools with unrelated operations. Between deletion and merging to the other school, I'd prefer to delete. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Rather than chopping and changing, I'll let this sit a couple of days to see if there are any more views or any better sources. Or, indeed, any better redirect targets. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are considerable Thai-language mentions in student football news, mostly match reports.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41] Quite a few passing mentions from organizations hosting the school's students for various activities.[42][43][44] Not much in terms of independent in-depth coverage though. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I meant to come back to this sooner, sorry. Having considered Paul 012's insights, I agree that merge may not be the best in this context. There is primary sourcing on the school but not secondary sourcing. As such it does no pass WP:GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2024 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Springs, Los Angeles County, California[edit]

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

Im told this should here since it was PROD'd and de-PROD'd once already. Been trying to de-stub some LACo locations and this one is confounding me. Possibly location of a ranch/wedding venue/place they shot porn movies https://www.realtor.com/news/unique-homes/cecil-b-demille-ranch-indian-springs-sordid-story/ ? Possibly a campground in 1910 per https://www.newspapers.com/article/los-angeles-herald-indian-springs/139873386/ ? Think there *might be physical springs slightly to the north but can't find them either (because their name is very common or...?) I suspect it was once an Angeles National Forest-area rustic vacation retreat but can't really find evidence. Long story short, don't think this meets geographic notability. (PS There were/are Indian Springs in Chatsworth, Sawtelle, and Montrose but I don't think any of them are this one.) jengod (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. jengod (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a quick look at the geographic coordinates seems to place it in Kagel Canyon, [45], googled that and found this:[46]. No mention of the springs, tho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherzone (talk • contribs) 2024-01-30T18:10:12 (UTC)
It's not a community. It is very much private, and it's marked Leonis Ranch on the maps before it was Indian Springs. You are looking at the ranch of Jean-Baptiste "J.B." Leonis (yes, the Vernon, California one) who was Cecil B. DeMille's neighbour. It's not the DeMille ranch itself. The owner in that real estate advert is claiming too much, as other (alas, not too reliable) sources on the life of Leonis say that DeMille and Leonis were contemporaries and the latter did not buy from the former. I don't trust the owner's autobiographical book, either. Although saying that it was once owned by DeMille pales in comparison to Wikipedia saying for 12 years, for 6 of which the buildings didn't even exist, that it is (present tense) a "community". Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I just double-checked every Los Angeles County spring listed in Waring 1915 and Berkstresser 1968 nothing is close. jengod (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fun fact! There's a Demille Fault that runs under this location that's obv named for the adjacent Demille ranch.^[1] jengod (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nordin's book is self-published and the author blurb for it, nor indeed the book contents, do not exactly suggest historical rigour. But it does say, for what it's worth, that the ranch was initially Leonis's name backwards, and Leonis renamed it to Indian Springs. Nordin is apparently in it for the booze. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

references

Nordin, Richard (2017). The Iron Fist: The Immigrant Journey of J. B. Leonis to Riches and Power in Southern California. Xlibris Corporation. ISBN 9781524570460.
Nordin, Richard. "The Leonis Collection". Christie's.
Bullock, Maggie (2018-12-05). "Rare pre-Prohibition whiskeys offer a taste of American history". CNN.
Goldfarb, Aaron (2020-09-29). "Mr. DeMille, I'm Ready for Your Booze Stash". The New York Times.

References

^ page 155

Comment - the guy and/or "Prohibition-era liquor hoards" sound entirely notable. Not sure we want to hang this on Indian Springs tho. jengod (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. The sources, especially the autobiography and the fire sale advert, are poor to woeful; and neither the edit history nor the title at hand are in any way useful. Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lets just delete it, it's clear there is no Indian springs, California. All the material you guys found found belongs at Indian springs (ranch).James.folsom (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2024 (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 mayors of Lynwood, California. Content already copied to target article. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Rodriguez (American politician)[edit]

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

Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions in a relatively small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Mexico, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Most of the secondary sources are all fairly WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. The alledged criminal activity also seems to fail WP:CRIME and not notable either. Shaws username . talk . 12:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Lynwood, California Shaws username . talk . 13:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to very obvious ATD >>>> List of mayors of Lynwood, California Djflem (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of mayors of Lynwood, California. I'm not able to find enough coverage where a standalone would be warranted, though I will note that he is interviewed for about a page of this academic publication. My rationale for a merge comes from WP:NOPAGE; I think the mayors of this town would better be covered in one article than be split out across many, and the "notes/citation" area of the central table in the list offers us space to write brief biographies on all the mayors while keeping them coherently organized. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:31, 21 February 2024 (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 mayors of Lynwood, California. Content already copied to target article. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Teresa Santillan[edit]

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

Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions in a relatively small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The secondary sources are all fairly WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. Shaws username . talk . 12:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Lynwood, California Shaws username . talk . 13:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to very obvious ATD >>>> List of mayors of Lynwood, California Djflem (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of mayors of Lynwood, California. I think that the small blurb we have about her in the present article could be incorporated into the table there, in line with WP:NOPAGE. Rather than deleting outright, I think that some of the content may be worth preserving, and that we should keep the page history if we decide to merely redirect. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:27, 21 February 2024 (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 06:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Jenisch[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Refs are profiles and passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 14:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thank you for the links. I'll review and see if there's a path forward with resolving this issue. I initially created this page because he's been heavily featured in the press, but I understand your perspective.--Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a no WP:SECONDARY newspapers sources here. It is all either him or the companies he's working for. You will need evidence he is notable per WP:THREE. The article is just WP:PROMO with no illusion to being notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the guidance. Working to resolve issue!--Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article and added relevant sources. I hope it works. Lusa131313 (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is a WP:SPA and a WP:UPE. scope_creep^Talk 08:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the first two block, 19 in total.

Ref 1 [47] Profile, likely written by himself. Not independent as profile are generally written by the person themselves.
Ref 2 [48] Routine annoucement that arrived to lecture. Not independent.
Ref 3 [49] Passing mention
Ref 4 [50] Routine annoucement. Press-release. Not independent.
Ref 5 [51] Routine annoucement. Not independent.
Ref 6 [52] Passing mention of new job. Routine annoucement. Not independent.
Ref 7 [53] Same ref as above. Routine annoucment of employment. Not independent.
Ref 8 [54] "the building materials giant said on Sunday" "The U.S. operations were "simply too successful to be run as a subsidiary," Jenisch said." Not independent.
Ref 9 [55] "Jan Jenisch: “I am very pleased that the Board has appointed Miljan" Not independent.
Ref 10 [56] "Holcim Ltd., the world’s largest cement maker, said Sunday it plans to separate its fast-growing North American business" Not indepenent.
Ref 11 [57] "Our North American business is a real rock star. We doubled the company just in the last four years by strong organic growth, by acquisitions. And we have leading margins, the EBITDA margin is already above 27%," Jenisch told CNBC on Monday" Not independent.

I'm not going to do anymore. It is a waste of time. None of these reference constitute reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. They all come from the company. They prove he is exists and that is it. WP:BLP states "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." It fails that criteria. WP:BIO state three criteria to be notable. He fails every criteria. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree & have moved on myself. Having added as much sourcing as possible, I'm not sure if there is currently anything more out there.--Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTPROMO And his achievements were ... WHAT? Reads like a self-promotion résumé, the kind you put out there for publicity purposes. But it lists absolutely nothing about achievements. — Maile (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [58] is a profile page, [59] it is not in-depth about Jan Jenisch, [60], [61] Again PR announcement other shared sources are also same. Lordofhunter (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2024 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosea Kemp[edit]

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

A search for sources yielded 1 small hit in gnews, and only 1 line mentions in google books. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, United Kingdom, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Part of a set of articles on Desert Island Discs castaways (see List of Desert Island Discs episodes (1961–1970)). Featured subject in an entire episode of a national radio programme. Mentioned in several print sources by dint of that appearance and more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Described as "a trailblazer for women in Australian meteorology" in The Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the sources noted by Pigsonthewing, there is an obituary in Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society: [62]. Jfire (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The bylined obit in the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, as well as the entry in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation seem to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV by multiple independent reliable print sources. The radio recordings, on top of these, makes me believe that this article's subject passes WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG, and I see no persuasive reason to delete. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:24, 21 February 2024 (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 List of teams and organizations in DC Comics. Consensus to merge into List of teams and organizations in DC Comics and the redirect pointing to Black Dragon Society. Addition of the section into Black Dragon Society can be further discussed outside AfD if needed, as the consensus is there for only merging after multiple relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Dragon Society (comics)[edit]

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

No apparent notability, entirely plot and fails WP:GNG. Cited only to individual comic books. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:15, 22 January 2024 (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. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG.RomanRaju (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to ~~List of teams and organizations in DC Comics#B~~ Black Dragon Society (as part of a new In American popular culture section, or something like that) as WP:AtD. This is mentioned but not discussed in more detail in a few web articles. If someone turns up more secondary sources, I'd be happy to hear about it. There also seems to be a Marvel version, which is actually briefly discussed here, but that seems to be a Master thesis. Daranios (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Another source, which has a bit of commentary, is All New, All Different? - A History of Race and the American Superhero, p. 27. Daranios (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - And a journal article with a bit of commentary. Daranios (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have to admit, the fact that several different groups had their own version of a fictional depiction of the Black Dragon Society makes considering sources a tad confusing. Like, this journal article is about the version used by Fawcett Comics, well before their buyout by DC, and thus is not the same "Black Dragon Society" created by Fox and Burnley that the majority of this article is about. But since Fawcett was later bought by DC, its kinda-sorta related? In any case, it definitely would be a useful source for discussing the fictional depictions of the group at the main Black Dragon Society article. Rorshacma (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Rorshacma: Indeed. I think it's worth considering that despite the introductory sentence, the title and content of the current article do cover appearances in comics by different pubishers, not specifically DC only. So I'm changing my preferred merge target to Black Dragon Society, viewing the reception/reaction in American popular culture as a sub-topic of the real organization. That said I still think that, while the current article presumably fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG, it still contains elements worth preserving, in a merge and its history, so that in the end it should remain a redirect. The qualifier "(comics)" is not extraordinary on Wikipedia, so I disagree with Shooterwalker that this should be an unlikely search term, and redirects are WP:CHEAP. Daranios (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I can get behind redirecting this to the main article and adding a few sentences of information there discussing its use in pop culture using the sources you've found here. Rorshacma (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Very minor group with almost no sources. The three sources provided by Daranios' link are extremely trivial - they basically just name drop the group with no real explanation or coverage aside from the fact that they existed (and one of them appears to not even be about the same group, as it occurs in an issue of Captain Marvel from long before Fawcett was bought out by DC.) I also was not able to find anything better in my own searches, as most of what I can find are not reliable sources, such as DC Wikis. Without any real sources, I don't think merging to the list of teams would be appropriate. At best, this could possibly redirect to List of DC Comics characters: D#Dragon King, the one member of any note. That said, if anyone finds any good sources discussing the fact that multiple companies used the name "Black Dragon Socieity" as villains due to the real world group, it might be worth adding a few sentences discussing that trend to the article on the real-life Black Dragon Society. Rorshacma (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rorshacma: I think one such source could be Japan-Bashing - Anti-Japanism Since the 1980s, p. 112-113, but, *grr*, I can no longer see it. The book I've added above also has a very brief comment to that effect: "The Black Dragon Society, featured in much of American popular culture", to then go on to talk about the comics' version. No objection to covering the comics version briefly at Black Dragon Society and redirect there. Daranios (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I definitely think that while the DC specific version is not particularly notable itself, the fact that the real life group was used as villains for multiple unrelated pieces of fiction due to wartime propaganda and general anti-Japanese sentiment is something worth discussing in that article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Dragon Society - Per the discussion above, I think adding some information regarding its use as villains in multiple works of fiction would be worth mentioning at the article for the real life Black Dragon Society, in which case this article can be used as a redirect there. Note that I am not advocating copying/pasting any of the information from this current article over there, but instead adding a few new sentences using some of the sources mentioned by Daranios. Rorshacma (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per Rorshacma. Does not reach WP:SIGCOV, and an unlikely search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Refactoring this to redirect. In good faith, I still don't really agree that a redirect makes sense here. But I believe in more WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of teams and organizations in DC Comics in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you talking about the merge to Black Dragon Society or the merge to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics? --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no preference. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It appears that consensus is developing to point this to Black Dragon Society but there is still consideration for pointing to List of DC Comics characters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added an "In popular culture" section to the Black Dragon Society article, which I believe is justified even if we decide to merge this with List of teams and organizations in DC Comics.Cortador (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So far, the Fawcett Comics version was listed there. If the outcome is merge to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics, a brief information on the DC version should be listed in that section you added. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing the DC version. Cortador (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which, I want to point out, is a very important part of merging. Merging does not just simply mean copying and pasting one article wholesale into another, unsourced information and all. Rorshacma (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - We still have to put the DC Comics version somewhere as I had mentioned to @Cortador:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        We don't. If no reliable sources cover the DC version, it's not notable. Cortador (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Cortador, Rtkat3, and Rorshacma: All New, All Different? - A History of Race and the American Superhero, p. 27, mentioned above, does verify and somewhat discuss the appearance in DC's All-Star Comics, and there are other mentions like in Comics Through Time. So while I think the DC version is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, I believe merging appropriate parts to both List of teams and organizations in DC Comics#B and Black Dragon Society#In popular culture, with a view to what's relevant to the target's topic, is warranted. The redirect, however, should point to Black Dragon Society#In popular culture in the end in my view, as ...(comics) is not specific to DC. Daranios (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps we can have those information taken care of by your suggestion by leaving brief information at the Black Dragon Society's section in question and the full information at the Black Dragon Society section at List of teams and organizations in DC Comics. Anyone else agree with what Daranios pitched? --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2024 (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 05:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lugo[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this college football coach to meet WP:GNG. The strongest source I found was this piece from the Thousand Oaks Acorn, which includes about a half-dozen sentences of independent coverage. I found a couple passing mentions, most notably in the Ventura County Star, on Newspapers.com, but nothing substantial. I would support draftification as an ATD. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few details here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be the same article under a different name, albeit with more pictures. JTtheOG (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lugo is the head coach of the DIII Cal Lutheran football team. In three years under Lugo the team has gone 12-17. I confirmed that the articles found by JT and Beanie are the same piece, and it's borderline SIGCOV from a smaller newspaper group in Ventura County. The paper of record in Ventura County (where I live) is the VC Star. The Star's archives are on Newspapers.com, but my search failed to turn up any SIGCOV of Lugo in the Star. The best I found was this which IMO falls below the SIGCOV line. I lean toward delete unless someone comes up with additional SIGCOV. (The article from the student newspaper, The Echo, doesn't count as its not an independent source.) Cbl62 (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat: If someone comes forward indicating a desire to work on this in draftspace, I'm ok with that outcome. Cbl62 (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find the requisite WP:SIGCOV for this to meet the WP:GNG. If BeanieFan11 or someone else wants to draftify this to try and find more sources, I'd support the effort. Let'srun (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2024 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Mohr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails all relevant notability policies: WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Crime, Japan, Thailand, Germany, Australia, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The previous AfD was closed as soft delete; the article was undeleted upon request today. Given the requestor is an experienced editor who listed 5 likely sources in the UDR, it would be best to have given them more than an hour to work on the article before re-nominating it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources shown by pburka in the undeletion request:

She was the subject of S15E02 of National Geographic's Banged Up Abroad; profiled in Bild; and her trial was sensational and widely covered (and [63] and [64]) in Australia

Jfire (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The 2010 Bild profile and 2022 National Geographic episode represent significant and persistent coverage in reliable sources. pburka (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep sigcov. Reliable sources. NG coverage is significant as well. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've just spent a bit of time adding sources, some of which are in-depth. I think it's fairly comfortable to say the article passes WP:GNG. It still has problems as far needing more citations for the claims made in it. It also appears to have been generated from a translation so it could do with a bit of a rewrite, but those are not reasons for deletion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per pburka. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG: aside from the obvious lack of WP:BEFORE, as a minimum in your rationale you should have addressed the sources provided by Pburka in the undeletion request and explain how they do not count toward the GNG. Cavarrone 16:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer that refunds for soft deletes and PRODs go through AFC. Barring that, I will AFD them. Either way, the community gets a shot at having a say instead of a unilateral overturn of a legitimate deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG: There is no policy-based reason that refunds go through AfC, and there is absolutely no policy that supports taking undeleted articles immediately back to AfD before anyone has even had a chance to work on them. To insist that an editor with 30,000 edits and 250+ articles created, who has been trusted by the community with autopatrol and pending changes review, should have to go through AfC is utterly ridiculous. Failing to perform BEFORE and claiming lack of notability while ignoring sources listed in an undeletion request is very poor behavior indeed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources have been found, article could do with a bit of a cleanup which has started. AusLondonder (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2024 (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 Navico. I will add the merged content to the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simrad Yachting[edit]

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

No evidence of any significant or independent coverage. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Norway. Owen× ☎ 14:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Navico as an ATD. Both short articles. Can be included in totality (something always drops) without creating a situation of undue. gidonb (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nominated the related Lowrance Electronics. gidonb (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for Deletion, Merging or Keeping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Navico, can't find anyhting to give it notability on it's own, merging with Navico makes sense to me to add there. Shaws username . talk . 12:29, 14 February 2024 (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 Santa Cruz, Manila#Education. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doña Teodora Alonzo High School[edit]

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

Prod due to WP:NSCHOOL issues was contested hence putting it up for AfD. Alternatively, redirect to Santa_Cruz,_Manila#Education. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Worth pointing out that the article history shows removal of uncited content that gave a potted history of the school, and thus the article has been reduced to an infobox and single sentence, previously uncited. Respect to the nominator for suggesting an AtD in the nomination. Rupples (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. School visited by reporter and featured on TV network GMA news programme "Unang Balita" re COVID face masks [65] (6 minute video); Philippine Daily Inquirer report on 2007 school fire [66]. Despite extensive searching that's all I've found other than mentions. Not enough coverage to pass the GNG so redirect to Santa Cruz, Manila#Education. Rupples (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Santa Cruz, Manila#Education per Rupples. Doesn't pass GNG but that page would be a good location to say something about this and other schools there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Santa_Cruz,_Manila#Education. Agree with the others regarding WP:NSCHOOL, but I do think we should point this to the place in our encyclopedia where we do cover the school. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:16, 21 February 2024 (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 05:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Naumoff[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Macedonian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All that came up were passing mentions (2014, 2015, 2016, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and North Macedonia. JTtheOG (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 15 February 2024 (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 Luxembourg women's international footballers. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Weis[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Luxembourg. JTtheOG (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2024 (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 Myanmar women's international footballers. RL0919 (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ei Yadanar Phyo[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Myanmar women's international footballers. I am unable to find enough coverage on the subject, a Burmese women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (2014, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Myanmar. JTtheOG (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the source assessment seems to be fair as the online hits are all squad list mentions and trivial match report mentions. I'm not seeing any detailed coverage and the article, in its current form, has no sources that even comply with WP:SPORTBASIC #5 so we lose nothing by redirecting. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, makes sense as just mentions Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:22, 20 February 2024 (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 00:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by TV Azteca networks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NLIST, NOTDIRECTORY. Article is a giant list of programs "formerly and currently, and soon to be broadcast". Most of it is either unsourced or wikilinked to other articles that have info on the show but nothing about it being broadcast on TV Azteca. Most entries have no context or information. The few notable original programs are mentioned on whatever particular channel they were created for, nothing to merge. // Timothy :: talk 05:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a large list only sourced by four articles altogether which is more complicated to navigate than a Mexico City Metro map, along with complete falsehoods like The Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock Presents being distributed by Disney, with the latter broadcast on CBS, along with The Good Doctor (which is actually a Sony production). WP:TNT it. Nate • (chatter) 17:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreliable. If anyone wants to recreate a properly-sourced and verifiable list, great. Mccapra (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2024 (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 12:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shadaab–Abhik[edit]

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

I am skeptical that this singer-songwriter duo meets the standards outlined by GNG. In my initial search, I couldn't find any coverage that would qualify as GNG-worthy. AmusingWeasel (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AmusingWeasel (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find anything about the duo. There is some coverage about Shadaab Hashmi but not enough for notability and only mentions about Abhik Chatterjee. S0091 (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. wound theology ◈ 09:15, 14 February 2024 (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.