< January 27	January 29 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any Given Sin[edit]

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

Non notable band. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found two sources from WP:ALBUMSOURCES search engine: [1] [2] The rest of the sources are AllMusic reviews. Other sources (not in the list) include: [3] Brachy08 _(Talk) 02:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also found [4], [5], [6], [7], maybe this one as well [8]. Geschichte (talk) 08:43, 29 January 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. Owen× ☎ 17:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shantanu Bhamare[edit]

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

Bit part actor. Fails WP:NACTOR. Refs are clickbait, profiles and PR. scope_creep^Talk 17:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. BLPs require strong independent sourcing.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Promo	1. "Shantanu Bhamare proves his potential as a stellar actor with diverse projects in the pipeline". DNA India. 9 December 2023. Retrieved 12 January 2024.
Promo, interview	2. ^ "Challenge is to act on basis of your own talent: Shantanu Bhamare". Hindustan Times. 23 April 2022. Retrieved 12 January 2024.
Database record	3. ^ "Shantanu Bhamare filmography-Bollywood Hungama". Bollywood Hungama. Retrieved 12 January 2024.
Promo annoucement	4. ^ "Shantanu Bhamare To Play The Role Of A Jailer In 'Fire of Love: RED'". Zee News India. 9 November 2023. Retrieved 12 January 2024.
Promo	5. ^ "फायर ऑफ लवः रेड में शांतनु भामरे की एंट्री, जेलर के रोल से मचाएंगे बवाल, जानें कब रिलीज हो रही है फिल्म". News 18. 24 September 2023. Retrieved 13 January 2024.
Database record	6. ^ "Shantanu Bhamare Filmography- Indian Film History". Indian Film History.
Promo	7. ^ "शांतनु भामरे 'फायर ऑफ लव: रेड' में बनेंगे जेलर". NDTV. 7 October 2023. Retrieved 13 January 2024.
Promo	8. ^ "Teri Aashiqui Mein Shantanu Bhamare -Elena Tuteja Starreer – Hindi Video Song Album Released!". APN News.
Promo	9. ^ "Shantanu Bhamare dedicates his latest song 'Baby De Ek Chance' to his mother". Times of India. 10 January 2023.

BEFORE found similar promo, listings, interviews, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 16:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an accurate source analysis table. No doubt. scope_creep^Talk 15:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or move to Draft: Not all the source analysis is correct. Not every news article is promo. The subject worked more than three feature films. Macbeejack ☎ 08:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Macbeejack: If you have references, throw them up so we can look at them. Per WP:THREE, which is now considered best practice, three good references would do it. Just saying the source analysis is incorrect, which is wrong, isn't enough. Lets see some evidence. The source analysis is perfect. scope_creep^Talk 10:02, 30 January 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 23:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theosophical Society in the Philippines[edit]

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

I couldn't find any secondary sources that give in depth coverage of this subject. The article is built from primary references, which may be all that exist Big Money Threepwood (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Philippines. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this source: [9] but I don’t think it is enough to establish notability. Ping me if you found one (not primary source). On a side note, the article seems a tad bit promotional, so blowing it all up can be an option if kept. Brachy08 _(Talk) 02:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find good sources from GNews, GNews Archives (There's a hit for a meditation class by a former president of the org), and GBooks (There's a hit but it's a primary source). From Google Scholar: page 171 of the article I think this is the strongest ref I found so far but it only says that they have a presence in the country since the 1920s. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:09, 3 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 Moldova–United States relations. Sandstein 12:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Chișinău[edit]

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

This article is merely a list of staff and former ambassadors. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Moldova, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Moldova–United States relations. Fails GNG. Material with sources appears already in the target article, I don't see anything properly sourced for a merge. // Timothy :: talk 00:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Per timothy. Chekidalum (talk) 11:42, 5 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 Gujarat Technological University#Affiliated colleges. No independent sourcing to indicate the notability of this college; redirecting to its university Joyous! Noise! 17:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merchant Engineering College[edit]

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

Unable to find sources that would help this college meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Recommend converting this into a Redirect to Gujarat Technological University -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, India, and Gujarat. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gujarat Technological University#Affiliated colleges per nom. I don't see any independent coverage that would merit a section, let alone a stand alone article and the article does not have any WP:IS sources for a merge. // Timothy :: talk 16:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:59, 28 January 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 speedy keep per WP:BOLD. The nomination was for another article (or rather a version of this one), really. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Nedow[edit]

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

The numbers of the shot put best result, the weight and height are unreal — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommieKunst (talk • contribs) 18:12, 27 January 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 January 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if some of the information is wrong, this can be corrected through editing, rather than deleting the entire article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there was a lot of old vandalism never reverted about weight, height, etc., but I've reverted it here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, vandalism isn't a reason to AfD. I will say I find it odd that a new account's only edit at all is to nominate an article for deletion; TommieKunst (talk · contribs), have you got any other previous Wikipedia accounts? CoconutOctopus talk 22:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A search found numerous reliable sources to back up notability. Meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources found in the article seems to back up notability. Brachy08 _(Talk) 02:11, 29 January 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 23:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Chereshko[edit]

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

User:94.158.161.177 attempted to nominate this article for deletion by placing the following comment on the article's talk page: "Possible violation of Notability principles and Self-promotion rules". I am completing this nomination on their behalf but will remain neutral myself for the time being. Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 29 January 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.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Name in list	1. "» Докладчики". Retrieved 2023-10-11.
Name mention in database record	2. ^ "Черешко Кирилл - MEMORYON". memoryon.net (in Russian). Retrieved 2023-10-11.
Name mention in database record	3. ^ "Кирилл Черешко, Москва, Россия". personbase.com. Retrieved 2023-10-11.
Name mention in database record	4. ^ "Кирилл Черешко, Мытищи Россия". poiski.pro. Retrieved 2023-10-11.
Interview work, primary	5. ^ Jump up to:a b c Синхронист о своей работе: перевёл – как вагон разгрузил., retrieved 2023-10-11
Resume type page	Авторская платформа Pandia.ru". pandia.ru. Retrieved 2023-10-11.
Resume type page	7. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "Кирилл Викторович Черешко на "Профи". Рейтинг "5,0", 2 отзыва. Английский язык, немецкий язык, манекенщицы". Profi.ru. Retrieved 2023-10-11.
Resume type page	8. ^ "Персональный сайт - Опыт работы". perevodchik-chereshko.narod.ru. Retrieved 2023-10-11.
Primary, video	Услуги". Авито (in Russian). Retrieved 2023-10-11.
Primary, annoucement of appointment	10. ^ "Знакомьтесь, новый член Союза МТПП ИП Черешко К.В. — последовательный и синхронный переводчик английского языка". mytischi.tpprf.ru. Retrieved 2023-10-11.
Database record	11. ^ "Черешко Кирилл Викторович, Мытищи". Налоговая.ру (in Russian). Retrieved 2023-10-11.
Primary, video	12. ^ Кирилл Черешко. В здоровом теле – здоровый дух: спорт в жизни переводчика., retrieved 2023-10-12
Primary, video	13. ^ Память переводчика, retrieved 2023-10-12

BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 01:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Timothy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:50, 4 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 22:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laxmi Steel Railings[edit]

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

No indication of notability, three sources given are a self-made website, a catalogue website that can't be reached and a user-generated database. A WP:BEFORE search shows a variety of "Laxmi Steel" companies but none fitting this description, and the only references to "Laxmi Steel & Railings" are on other commercial catalogues. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Redirect to KK Bishnoi would have been fine too, but I can't find a RS to connect the two. Article creator seems a bit focused on the Bishnoi family. Wikishovel (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, didn't want to redirect as even that claim doesn't seem to be supported anywhere. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing from reliable references to support WP:GNG. Agree with analysis regarding redirect.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of WP:SIGCOV, Does not pass WP:NCORP. Macbeejack ☎ 08:46, 30 January 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 23:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Reel Independent Film Festival[edit]

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

Heavily advertorialized article about a film festival, not properly sourced as passing WP:NEVENT. As always, film festivals are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about the festival in media — but this is heavily reference-bombed almost entirely to primary and/or unreliable sourcing that isn't support for notability (the festival's own self-published content about itself on its main website, press release distribution platforms, Facebook posts, blogs, YouTube videos, etc.), with very little evidence of genuinely notability-building media coverage about it shown at all.
Simply existing isn't automatically notable enough to exempt it from having to have much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's been an event for over 20 years, i was hoping to find something in RS. This is the best I could find [10]; not strictly about the festival, but confirmation of it at least. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please see sources I added to External Links on the article. I had them listed here, but there is some Wikipedia dictate that won't allow sourcing listed at AFD. So check the External Links on the article. . — Maile (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- These appear to be ... lists and press releases? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on what I wrote here and per nom. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no coverage in notable sources about the event, even what's been added to the external links section is PR or passing mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The event seems notable but The entire article is sourced as self published references. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV for now. Macbeejack ☎ 08:48, 30 January 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 22:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top 25 Canadian Immigrant Awards[edit]

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

Article about an award, not properly sourced as passing WP:NEVENT. As always, awards are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show third party media coverage about them in reliable sources to demonstrate that they've been externally validated as significant -- but 18 of the 19 footnotes here are to the award committee's own self-published content about itself, which are not support for notability. And while one footnote does actually lead to a piece of real media coverage, that isn't enough to pass GNG all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing is primary.
There's just nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have more and better sourcing than just stuff it published itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Its own website can't be used to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:02, 2 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 Preston, Minnesota#Education. After apparently having been merged there. Sandstein 12:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Public Library[edit]

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

Delete. Previously nom'd as a mass deletion. In my review I'm not seeing how this passes WP:CORP. I was looking and I may have missed it but I'm also not seeing a blanket GNG exemptions to libraries. The coverage seems trivial when there is some. Unbroken Chain (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Unbroken Chain (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'd say GNG is the more accurate measure just because a library is a place and this isn't really about it as an organization. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually assume N:ORG applies as it does to other non profits. I don't find coverage to indicate the library meets it, but redirect to Preston, Minnesota as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 22:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous experience has taught me that notability of organizations can be more muddied when they tick other boxes (e.g. a place). The recent debacle I had about school districts is a good example of that (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 188#School districts and GEOLAND). Anyways, since no one has linked it yet, this is the link to the previous mass AfD linked in the nomimation. I've searched for previous AfDs about libraries to see if there was any particular recurring argument that comes up during these and so far I've found:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutter County Library – no consensus
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams County Public Library – mass nomination, merged to respective locales
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halifax North Memorial Library – redirect
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catoosa County Library – kept, arguments were about GNG, not ORG
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huron County Library – deleted, arguments were about GNG, not ORG
Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little muddy with non city museums too, since they tend to get more coverage than your regular small town org. And like libraries, they're an org in and of the place, especially local history ones. To me it remains the best barometer since it's easier to address depth vs. x museum / y library hosts this event. Star Mississippi 23:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can still use GNG as a metric while discounting "library hosts this event", given the latter is very routine coverage. I've never tried to use something of that nature as a claim to establishing notability. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Preston, Minnesota#Education. I don't see this having independent sources showing notability meeting GNG or NORG. Stub article so I boldly moved the sentence and added refs to the existing education section on the target article. Even if it meets a guideline, not everything needs a stand alone article, as it stands, this is an unneeded CFORK of the education section on the main article; the content will be better at the target and provide a place it can be developed. // Timothy :: talk 01:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Preston, Minnesota#Education, now that it already has been merged. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:19, 5 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 23:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Kayan Association[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE didn't find any more sources than the two given in the page, doesn't pass WP:GNG (one of the sources is from the association's own website). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 18:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Canada. Owen× ☎ 19:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing even in Canadian sources; this is largely PROMO with primary sourcing used. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and promotional. Local Variable (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A new reference from a government agency in Canada was added which verifies the registration and establishment of the cultural organization. Sanchoof (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions, but that does not address the concerns raised above. Entry in a directory of organisations is insufficient to establish notability. Local Variable (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can apply for a business license just about anywhere, it doesn't make your business notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet passes WP:GNG. Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV. Macbeejack ☎ 08:52, 30 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder If U Care[edit]

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

Cannot find non-trivial reliable published sources about this song - within the article's sources, the Stereogum article only features two sentences about it, and the Ones to Watch article does not mention the song at all, being about another EP which this song is not on. The Billboard TikTok Top 50 chart placing and streams/views alone don't help with notability as per WP:NSONG. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 17:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 17:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Artist redlinks, no other songs; it's yet another Tiktok background song nobody would think is a standout song of 2023, much less look up. Nate • (chatter) 22:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to have any coverage outside of the Stereogum article. No apparent valid merge/redirect targets available. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article is also an orphan. It was linked from list of shoegaze musicians, but I've removed that since the artist appears to be non-notable as well. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes it got some buzz from social media watchers but professional coverage is very limited, and the journalists involved should have done their research to give us some sort of story about the musician himself. It would make more sense here for the musician to have his own article first, but that would be unlikely to survive our notability rules either. For song or musician, an encyclopedia needs more than some minor commentary on how something that nobody ever bothered to investigate got noticed by streamers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:08, 29 January 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 23:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sahat Manaor Panggabean[edit]

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

Not enough notability. Being a Chief of the Indonesian Quarantine Agency does not qualify for WP:NPOL, and outside routine coverage of his appointment there is not much notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:39, 29 January 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 nominator withdrew Mach61 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Shayea[edit]

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

WITHDRAW NOMINATION - based on the help from the article creator in finding new, reliable sources and help with translations and confusion regarding his name, birthdate and place of birth. This singer does not appear to meet notability criteria for WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:GNG. The current sourcing is almost entirely user-submitted content, or music download sites. A WP:BEFORE search finds social media, download or streaming sites like Spotify, Apple Music, and SoundCloud, but no SIGCOV whatsoever. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Iran. Netherzone (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The activity of rap singers in Iran is grateful and no festival or award is given to rap artists in Iran. But still, he is one of Iran's most famous rappers who is not allowed to work as an official artist in Iran. Shayea concerts are held outside Iran and are welcomed. In addition, 7 Sobh newspaper, which is used as a source in the article, is the official newspaper in Iran that covered the news of his presence.-- Meyboad (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have an established career with some presence, social media and coverage, which makes it more than borderline. scope_creep^Talk 13:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep, I trust your judgement implicitly but I'm not finding reliable information on this specific person, Mohammed Reza Shayea, born on July 31, 1992.

Here is what I'm finding so far...Online , I’m finding another Iranian rapper with the same birth name,(full name: Mohammad Reza Mohammadi), but they have a different birthdate: April 16, 1996. (I can't post the link because Issuewire is blocked by WP); and another Iranian rapper with the same birth name (full name: Mohammad Reza Gholami Fard) born on April 15, 1994.(also on Issuewire). Then there is the Persian rapper with the same name, (full name Mohammad Reza Naseri Azad) but born on February 1, 1988, who I found in wikidata [ https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6411090]

Other than the sources in the article that are playlists, download/streaming sites, music purchasing sites and social media: The first source says he was born in 1372 (!) in Tehran in the city of Ray. It calls him by the name Mohamed Reza Tash. A different source in the article seems to mention a different Mohamed Reza (full name Mohamed Reza Keshavar) Who was born in King Abdul Azim City of Ray.{ https://7sobh.com/بخش-اجتماعی-35/551790-جمع-رپ-فارسی-در-نوفل-لوشاتو]. Another source in the article calls him Mohammed Reza Saseh, but later calls him Mohammad Reza Sazh, a rapper born on August 9, 1372 (!)[11].

The only source that I can positively identify as him is [12].

I'm not sure that we have enough reliable biographical information at this time to verify who is who, however, we do know he wasn't born in 1372 if he is a rapper. I admit that my translations are really rough. Perhaps @Meyboad can shed some light on this and clear up the confusion?

If we can identify 3 solid, independent, reliable sources, I'll consider withdrawing the nom, but right now it looks like it might be a TNT situation if not a notability issue. All feedback is welcome! Netherzone (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone Thank you, Nader, for mentioning the things that can help in your answer and for guiding me.

Regarding the popular first name, his first name is Mohammad Reza, but the correct source does not mention his last name. That's why I tried to enter his name according to the correct information available. (Reza Pishro and the other names you mentioned are also Iranian rappers, but they are different characters and different from Shayea.)

According to these cases [13][14][15], his year of birth is July 31, 1992 and he was born in the city of Ray (Shahre-Rey).

I have extracted and entered other information from the official interview Shayea in Raptaminophen program.

I will also add the things I said to the sources of the article.

Thank you for your guidance Meyboad (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meyboad, Could you please remove any incorrect or unreliable sources from the article so we can see only the reliable ones with the correct name and birthdate?

Also please remove music streaming or music selling sources, social media or user-submitted content, leaving only the high quality newspaper or magazine sources?

That will really help to see what is actually there supporting the content in the article.

I understand the Mohammad Reza is a popular first name. What is his legal last name?

Thank you! Netherzone (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone I am glad that you will guide me how to improve the article (I will use this experience for other articles.

I will check the sources again and leave only the official sites and news.

Shayea has an interesting story. He did not show his picture for 10 years and no one saw his face. After showing his picture, no one knows what his last name is. Everyone knows and calls him Shayea, and he is mentioned by that name in interviews. Meyboad (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Meyboad, I changed the place of birth in the infobox to: Ray (Shahre-Rey), Tehran province, Iran. Is this correct?

Please remove from the article: any sources that have wrong information about him, or the wrong person with a similar name, or are unreliable (as specified above.) Let's try to narrow it down to 3 or 4 of the very best news sources, and go from there. On Wikipedia, all content, especially in biographies of living persons, needs to be accurate and verifiable - see WP:V for more information. Best regards, Netherzone (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Rey is Trust,

His name was finally revealed.

According to the statement of the Iranian Ministry of Culture, Iran's official news agencies revealed his full name during the events that happened a few days ago for his concert in Iran. Mohammad-Reza Dadashpour (محمدرضا داداش پور) [16][17][18] Meyboad (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meyboad, I looked at these sources, and they look fine. I also see his name is Mohammad Reza Dadashpour "Sha'i" in that article. I want to confirm with you, is Sha'i the same as Shayea but in the Iranian language? Netherzone (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm glad I got it right and improved the article (with your help, of course). Yes, this name is "شایع" in Farsi, which is also written as Shayea, Sha'i, Shaye in Finglish (using English characters for Farsi writing). Meyboad (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for working with me in such a collegial manner. I am going to withdraw the nomination. It may take a little time for an admin to process the change. Netherzone (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you're welcome,

Also, thank you for the helpful tips. Meyboad (talk) 21:26, 31 January 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 23:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golica TV[edit]

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

The one reference is routine coverage / likely based on a press release. A number of unsubstantiated claims, failing WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Slovenia. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Golica TV has received considerable national attention. It was awarded the Viktor award as the best local/cable station in 2010,[19][20] and it was also involved in a fraud widely reported by Slovenian media a few years ago.[21][22] It is the only Slovenian TV station with a full-day folk music programme.[23] --TadejM ^{my talk} 13:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TadejM A09|(talk) 22:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per all above. TV with considerable reputation in Slovenia. Svartner (talk) 14:04, 3 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 23:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Drummond[edit]

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

This article is being nominated for deletion due to concerns about its adherence to Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines, particularly those relating to biographies of living persons (BLP), neutrality, and self-promotion. The specific issues are as follows:

Single-Purpose Accounts: The page's creation and most of its edits are attributed to two users, User:NoSelfPromotion and User:Jason7477. These accounts appear to be single-purpose, dedicated solely to this article, suggesting a potential conflict of interest.
Potential Autobiography: The username User:Jason7477 closely resembles the subject of the article, Jason Drummond, implying that the subject may have contributed to their own biography, in violation of Wikipedia's autobiography and neutrality guidelines.
Long-Standing Tags for Multiple Issues: The article has carried tags for 'multiple issues,' including neutrality disputes, for nearly four years, indicating persistent, unresolved concerns about its compliance with Wikipedia's quality standards.
Content Resembling a Resume: The article's tone and structure more closely resemble a resume than an encyclopedic entry, which is inappropriate and promotional in nature.
Overreliance on Primary Sources: The article relies heavily on primary sources, contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sourcing, especially concerning biographies of living persons, thereby raising doubts about the content's verifiability and neutrality.

Given the long-standing nature of these issues, the patterns of single-purpose editing, and the article's overall tone and sourcing, and resume-nature, it appears that this page functions more as a vehicle for self-promotion than as a neutral, verifiable, and encyclopedically valuable piece. I therefore propose this page for deletion in line with Wikipedia's deletion policies.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These issues can be fixed, but it would take substantial amounts of editing. Blow it up and start over. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 14:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per UserMemer. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . I am not seeing proper sources. Many are stock share details. even if kept it needs a complete overhaul. Royal88888 (talk) 00:08, 31 January 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. The nominator has been arbcom-blocked, and nobody else has expressed a clear preference. Sandstein 12:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams of India[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page has been soft-deleted and refunded twice, but it still doesn't appear to have sufficient WP:SIGCOV. The journal article is a passing mention. The other sources do not appear independent. Andre🚐 08:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Radio, Popular culture, and Hinduism. Andre🚐 08:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the second of four radio plays in the Travels With Jack series. Why is only the second play in the series being repeatedly deleted as not notable? It seems peculiar to do this while leaving the first, third, and fourth plays in the series in place. If Dreams of India is not notable, shouldn't the articles for the other three plays also be deleted? Won't that be strange to have only the links for the second play in the series be dead? Won't the article just end up getting repeatedly recreated each time someone notices the missing link? Should there perhaps instead be an article for the series that replaces the articles for the individual plays? Bryan H Bell (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, maybe we should just merge them into one article about the series. Is the series itself notable though? Dreams of the Amazon, Dreams of Bali and Dreams of Sumatra all seem pretty skimpy on source coverage? Andre🚐 07:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right about notability for the series. Looking at the other Dreams of... articles, I am seeing almost identical content and a similar lack of sources. I must admit I did find it difficult finding coverage of Dreams of India. Give me a day or two to see if I can find any significant coverage for an article about the entire Travels With Jack series. If I can't, can you help me with nominating the other articles for deletion? I'm not too familiar with the process. Bryan H Bell (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 28 January 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 03:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White Springs Television[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG. PROD was declined in 2022 with the rationale that the channel was verified to have existed but existence does not equate to notability. Let'srun (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Florida, and Oregon. Let'srun (talk) 04:13, 14 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 05:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no references in the article, just a few external links at the bottom. Running through the first few pages of Google doesn't provide anything resembling a reliable source. Small references to WSTV affiliation in relevant TV station pages are enough for the purposes of Wikipedia. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 23:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – The Grid (talk) 17:17, 31 January 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. People who care can create a redirect on their own, but we don't have clear consensus for one here. Sandstein 12:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hetty Shi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE: has neither won a medal at a senior international event nor the gold medal at Canada’s national championships. Placements at novice & junior competitions do not count. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 14 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 11:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 Canadian Figure Skating Championships#Senior results. WP:TOOSOON, but a bronze medal is something. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: probably TOOSOON. Coverage is all simple match results or local media coverage [24] of a "hometown hero", which is fine, but we need more than that. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 28 January 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 00:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Sparace[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. In a WP:BEFORE search the only mention I can find of his name is in articles written by Sparace, about Sandro Paternostro. He's worked on some notable shows as technical director, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Italy, and United Kingdom. Wikishovel (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Broc (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 28 January 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 23:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M. B. Ranjit[edit]

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

Long and detailed bio of a recently deceased career police officer. There are lots of refs but overall I don’t see how this person was notable in Wikipedia terms. He was a man with a career. This appears to me to be a memorial page so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. Mccapra (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being sympathetic and sincere isn't the thing that makes you notable for a Wikipedia article. A working police officer, no different than many others from what I read in the article. Sourcing is simply confirmation of what the person did as a job. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any reliable resources. Fails WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 08:55, 30 January 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 00:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Røen[edit]

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

Does not appear notable per WP:SPORTBASIC - competed in one Olympic event in 1928 but did not finish, and seems to have received very little coverage since then - I can only find a few passing mentions or records in sports databases. Ethmostigmus (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am probably able to save it. Cross-country skiing is the national sport in Norway, and he is covered in several books - as well as contemporary and later news. Geschichte (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be much appreciated :) Ethmostigmus (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, so keep. Enough in-depth significant coverage, although he, unlike his brother, does not have an entire book dedicated to him. (I haven't used this book in the article yet) Geschichte (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per excellent work by Geschitchte. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also very happy to keep in light of all the print coverage Geschitchte was able to find :) Ethmostigmus (talk) 06:49, 30 January 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. Owen× ☎ 17:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Wijewardhana[edit]

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

Subject's only claim to fame was that he was a police officer who was killed by a vigilante mob. WP:VICTIM states that "where there are no appropriate existing articles [that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person],...the victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if the victim...had a large role within a well-documented historic event".

The killing wasn't a historic event - there were many events involving police officers during the Sri Lankan Civil War, either as victims or perpetrators. There is no inherent notability in being a police superintendent or an amateur rugby union player.

Article also fails WP:BASIC as there isn't significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources. The only sources are in relation to the killing or memorials written by relatives or friends. No sources prior to subject's killing.

There are currently no articles that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material but it's possible an article could be created to cover the entire incident - the killing of the civilian by the police and subsequent mob killing of the subject. Obi2canibe (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Sri Lanka. Obi2canibe (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The killing of Charles Wijewardhana gained much national coverage during and years after the incident [25], [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] with Wijewardhana been considered as one of the senior most police officers killed in the Sri Lankan Police service [32]. Given he was promoted to the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police which is the military equalant to a Major General or a General officer which has been considered to have sufficient coverage to qualify per WP:SOLDIER, the article meets the notablilty requirment. Cossde (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @Cossde: - WP:SOLDIER is no longer applicable. It needs to comply with WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt, can you please tell why WP:SOLDIER is no longer applicable? Cossde (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cossde: - the notability guidance previously provided by the WP:SOLDIER essay has been deprecated as a result of this discussion. It is no longer considered by WikiProject Military history to be useful guidance on the notability of military people, and its use in deletion discussions is actively discouraged by the project. Deletion discussions regarding biographical articles should refer to WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Victim of a notable murder that was widely covered in Sri Lanka. Batmanthe8th (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom hundreds of Police officers have died in the Sri Lankan Civil War.Fails WP:BASIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and move to The death of Charles Wijewardhana (or similar) per NBIOs guidance on events and 1Es, the references in the article push this past GNG. // Timothy :: talk 07:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just don't see notability for this person; one of many tragic deaths during the civil war, but a non-notable career otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oaktree b one of the tragic deaths in the conflict not notable.Tame Rhino (talk) 16:28, 29 January 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 00:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Steff[edit]

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

All claims to notability seem to be that he worked with notable people, but notability is not inherited. I couldn't establish that he himself meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, or that there is a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 28 January 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 00:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perplexity.ai[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP.

Draftified multiple times; declined multiple times at AfC; tags added and removed; the history of this article is somewhat complex. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe there are enough significant, independent, and reliable sources to claim WP:SIGCOV and pass WP:NCORP (e.g. [33][34][35][36][37]). It's not a great article, but it's not even bad enough for me to want to say that it can't be worked on in the main space (i.e. to draftify). PopoDameron ⁠talk 18:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

TechCrunch is not suitable for notability purposes, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_246#Is_TechCrunch_a_reliable_source?.
theregister.com article doesn't actually have in-depth coverage of Perplexity.ai, it's all about it's more-notable relations.
The Wall Street Journal podcast is so short it's not in-depth (at least according to the 'full transcript').
The Yahoo! Finance piece is a non-adversarial interview with the CEO.
The www.businesstoday.in source appears to contain multiple unattributed quotes from other articles on the web. This is not a reliable source.

In short, none of this is the reliable independent coverage that we're looking for. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a new article by the NYTimes [38] that I quite liked. Not currently used in the article, but even if you can't approve of any of the current sources, we should be good by WP:NEXIST. PopoDameron ⁠talk 21:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is paywalled for me. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the second and last sources cited by PopoDameron; the others look like churnalism to me, but those two should be enough for this to squeak through WP:NCORP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, other than the TechCrunch one, which seemed rather thorough to me. PopoDameron ⁠talk 03:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with PopoDameron; seems to meet WP:SIGCOV. Marokwitz (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously significant. Chris55 (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is enough coverage on this one. 00:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal88888 (talk • contribs)
Keep - The subject of the article is a publicly available part of the current frontier technology developments of artificial intelligence, and as such is of interest to the public, and the article's information about this AI is relevant. I came to this article today (to be here to comment) because I saw something of interest about it 'out in the world' and was curious to learn more from a balanced source; the article did not disappoint.LaEremita (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't love the sources identified above, but I do think that we have WP:SIRS through The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal (different story than WSJ piece given by PopoDameron), The Information, and The Register (PopoDameron's source #2). Article ought be improved, but deletion is not cleanup; we should not delete articles like this when ordinary editing can address any extant content issues. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:46, 4 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Károly Gesztesi[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actor, only known for working on dubs. 2A01:36D:1200:4638:F566:B628:7B58:B0E0 (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created in draftspace–I’ve moved it here on the IP’s behalf. I am neutral on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 20:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, Comics and animation, and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's not only a voice actor but an actor. only known for working on dubs is simply. not. true. Various significant roles in notable films make him fairly meet WP:NACTOR... In-depth direct coverage in independent media (in Magyar) exists. Awards.....Willing to improve the page, fwiw.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wasn't going to vote on this one, but his non-dubbing work is not notable, so I think the prev. poster is making a very weak argument. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
his non-dubbing work is not notable, how? Have you had a look at his filmography as actor by any chance? Multiple lead roles in notable films that received coverage in independent sources...a very weak argument....how? Significant roles in notable films (and a popular actor, I link that short source because it is in English, fwiw).... just have a look at the page and other existing sources, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC) (not to mention that coverage about him makes him meet the general requirements for notability, by the way)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are database listings/name mentions, nothing that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. About a third of the refs are OBITs/Membrials, the rest are name mentions and listings, except for [39], [40] which are about a lawsuit over post-death use his voice, which do not address the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 22:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Obituaries as sources. (aka WP:OBIT) states: "Obituaries published by high-quality reliable sources are often treated as valuable sources for articles on deceased individuals, since they provide a broad overview of the subject's life." Not to mention the fact that when so many obituaries are published in the media it certainly indicates something about notability. And most of them are (obviously) addressing the (deceased) subject directly (and in depth).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has earned several awards and has appeared in several media. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Actual analysis of the available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just considered that Gesztesi fairly meets WP:NACTOR, considering his lead roles in some of the biggest successes in Hungarian cinema of the 2000s, but fair enough. Obituaries are from sources that include Népszava, Origo, IGN, Femina and Rádió 1 (hu). All of them are established media that can be considered reliable in the field of entertainment. Blikk is on the tabloid side but there too, see WP:RSP about tabloids, if the tabloid is a well-established one, news about what is obviously not a rumour (the confirmed death of a celebrity) can be used but should be used with care. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One can also note that the Hungarian IP used by the nominator is currently blocked and has been blocked 4 times since 2020 for reasons that include disruptive editing, BLP violations, block evasion and abuse of multiple accounts....I have seen better credentials.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the bar set by WP:NACTOR is fairly low, but that is the applicable guideline here. And this actor more than meets NACTOR. Owen× ☎ 19:22, 29 January 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majella Wiemers[edit]

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

She doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Owen× ☎ 22:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She now works at the Seven Network as their head of entertainment since June 2022.

Pollock, Jason (30 June 2022). "Majella Wiemers joins Seven as head of entertainment". AdNews. Retrieved 14 January 2024.

Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 08:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Happily888, in order to find more refs that I cannot find via Google. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 10:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete google news has articles where she is commenting on particular TV shows, but no coverage indepth of her as the subject to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Cunard, to see if he can find more refs. I will integrate the references into the article, if he does find refs. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 05:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two sources I found that provide more biographical information about her:

Ossington, April (2009-10-18). "Traditional choice: get her to the church on time". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-01-25. Retrieved 2024-01-25.
The article notes: "One couple going against the trend by opting for a religious wedding are Majella Wiemers, 32, and Richard Murray, 30, who married on Friday in a traditional Catholic ceremony at Mary Immaculate Church in Waverley. The couple met in 2006 at a birthday party while Ms Wiemers was working for Channel Nine's A Current Affair"
"star watch". Herald Sun. 2005-05-21. EBSCOhost 200505211127086784.
The article is available at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library at this link. The article notes: "Majella Wiemers: National Nine News Early Edition, weekdays, 6am. Age 28. ... Big break: Being the nerdy kid who won the junior newsreading competition at 14. (Burn that tape.) Cadetship in regional television."

Cunard (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject meets WP:PRODUCER, especially as a head of entertainment for a major Australian television network and has multiple on-screen and off-screen roles supported by additional refs added by TechGeek105 since AfD discussion creation.
Knox, David (30 June 2022). "Seven Appoints Head of Entertainment". TV Tonight. TV Tonight. Retrieved 14 January 2024.

Happily888

talk

[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, the above and found in BEFORE is promo. // Timothy :: talk 18:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A detailed analysis of the sources proposed here (and any already used in the article, if any) would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:00, 28 January 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 00:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Dick[edit]

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

No clear evidence of individual notability; see WP:BANDMEMBER. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 28 January 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. Future discussion regarding potential merge targets can be handled on the article's talk page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh variable[edit]

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

"Fresh variable" is a term of art in computer science literature, whose meaning is essentially equivalent to "new variable". I'm unable to find any discussions of the term itself that would establish notability, and thus this appears to be a WP:DICDEF situation; a wikitionary entry may be appropriate, but none exists yet. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Mathematics, and Computing. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lambda_calculus#Capture-avoiding_substitutions, where the concept is explained better and with more context than the current article. I've only seen these in the context of dealing with recursion in lambda abstractions (there is no stack, hence you need to be careful to use substitutions to keep the variables straight), so the redirect target seems appropriate. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 18:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability: The concept of fresh (or new) variable is used in many fields of logics and theoretical computer science (not just Lambda calculus). The term appears literally in the articles Boolean satisfiability problem, Lambda calculus, Unification (computer science), Resolution (logic), Standard translation, Hindley–Milner type system. The concept is used in more articles, e.g. in Natural deduction#First and higher-order extensions, where "fresh" doesn't appear, but the term "avoiding capture" is used instead; more occurrences are likely to exist in Wikipedia. DICDEF: The article needs to give a formal definition of the concept, and maybe elaborate on definition variants in differents fields of application. It needs to explain what "capture" means in formal terms, and how to obtain capture-avoiding substitutions. This is far beyond what a dictionary does. (I admit that the current stub needs expansion to meet these requirements. Moreover, I didn't yet find appropriate textbook citations.) - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Term (logic): or possibly with Rewriting#Term_rewriting_systems. The phrase is used frequently in academic literature, but isn't notable enough for a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's no problem with having a very short article, if multiple independent reliable sources are cited which discuss the topic. Merging small topics into a subsection of a longer article is often worse in the longer term, because it prevents them from expanding to discuss more aspects of the specific topic that would be out of scope at the parent article. –jacobolus (t) 18:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of our current articles started their life as a section in another article before being spun off. The problem with Fresh variable isn't that it's short, but that it lacks evidence of notability sufficient for a standalone article. Under such a limitation, the only viable alternative to merging as a section in another article would be deletion, which I think you'll agree would be a loss. Owen× ☎ 20:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Merging into another article would be OK for me. I'd prefer variable (mathematics) to the above-mentioned Lambda_calculus#Capture-avoiding_substitutions, Term (logic) and Rewriting#Term_rewriting_systems, since the latter three cover just one application field each, while "variable (mathematics)" sounds pretty general. However, I'm not sure that a merge (no mather where) wouldn't result in undue weight of the new "Fresh variable" section. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of consensus, I am not wedded to Lambda_calculus#Capture-avoiding_substitutions, it was just the best single target I found at the time. If this is a unified concept used in a number of different subfields, turning this article into a broad-concept article WP:BROAD may be the way to go. This could be a disambiguation/list class sort of article, introduced with the formal/broad definition of fresh variable you mentioned above. But we'd still need a source for that broad definition to avoid synthesis. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 12:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this concept's uses are too wide and varied for merging it with anything to be a good idea, and it has plenty of coverage that would allow it to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and disambiguate As there are 3 suggested redirect/merge targets, disambiguation may be a better idea --94rain ^Talk 05:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation would lead to another 3 articles "fresh variable (xxx)", plus the DAB article itself, which would be definitely too many for this topic. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t need any articles named fresh variable (XX) to disambiguate. Something like Clazz will do. 94rain ^Talk 21:00, 28 January 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Brophy (American politician)[edit]

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

Does not pass GNG. He politically services stems from being a delegate which is not a very notable position which is evident by the lack of coverage from sources. Grahaml35 (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either draft or deletion, Sources were a bit difficult to find.

Best, Kevin9217 (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - does not seem to have ever been elected to public office. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Party functionary that was never elected; office work generally isn't notable. I can't find any mentions of this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree. I doubt much will be contributed if it is made into a draft, and since sources were scarce, I believe our vote will be unanimous for deletion. Kevin9217 (talk) 19:13, 28 January 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 02:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grandadbob[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence that they pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 04:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - looks like I need to get better at finding music sources, and I'm happy that the citations added support their notability. I'm glad that the nomination at least brought some attention to an article that needed it, if nothing else. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 02:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 04:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep on this one as there is evidence of meeting WP:NMUSIC, including: secondary album reviews in allmusic, Resident Advisor, and musicOMH, an allmusic staff bio, charting evidence from the Official Charts Company, and significant coverage on national radio BBC Radio 6. WP:V citations have been added to the article for all of these. ResonantDis_tortion 13:03, 28 January 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 00:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KNJO-LP[edit]

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arizona. Let'srun (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A "fully automated low-power television station" carrying nothing but America One that only operated in this century, and for just seven years at that, seems unlikely to generate the requisite significant coverage we look for today — this is another remnant of the much looser "notability standards" of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:58, 29 January 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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 01:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Scottsbluff[edit]

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

Non-notable shopping mall that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources cited here either contain trivial mentions of the article subject (for example, in the context of individual store closures) or they are routine, run-of-the-mill news stories about corporate changes. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Nebraska. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Uptown Scottsbluff (formerly Monument Mall) is unique in that it is arguably a struggling mall in a less populated area versus other malls that have significant competition with each other in higher populated areas like Northern Colorado. Many malls including Frontier Mall, Foothills Fashion Mall, and plenty of others do have some of the common stories at their core, such as stories behind Sears, JCPenney, and other brands (not denying that). There are aspects to this mall that are unique, however, including the fact the mall has mostly maintained it's aesthetic throughout the building, something which many nearby shopping malls have not done. This mall has had (and still has) unique, local businesses such as and including E&E Gift Shop and Planet Bounce Family Fun Center (both mentioned in the Uptown Scottsbluff article) that can't/couldn't be found at other malls. SomeMetroGuy (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SomeMetroGuy, even if everything you said is true, for an article to be written about a topic on Wikipedia it must be notable, which means that it requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Significant coverage means in-depth reporting on a topic, not just routine or run-of-the-mill news stories about stores coming and leaving. Having unique stores does not make a mall notable; otherwise, every single bodega in New York City would have its own Wikipedia article.

Additionally, the fact that other Wikipedia articles have been written about similar malls does not mean that an article should be written about this one. Those malls might be notable in their own right, or they might not be and those pages should be deleted too. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the mall is really unique, there will be secondary sources about it. Are you aware of any? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't the deadmalls.com source (already cited, source 2 in the article) be one such secondary source? SomeMetroGuy (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that deadmalls.com is a reliable source. In any event, multiple secondary sources are required. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deadmalls.com is self published, so not a reliable source. Yes, they have been interviewed on NPR,[41] but still self published. Nothing in their article suggests any special claim to notability for this mall. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you read that that dead malls account, it's obvious that it's a first hand account somebody wrote and submitted to the site. So, it's primary. James.folsom (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, this shouldn't be a stand alone article. But I'm struggling because I think it could meet WP:N. It has news coverage from local sources over a sustained period of time, is verifiable and all that good stuff. So, I spent some time reading more about notability, and this business about notability of malls appears to be unresolved. WP:Corp was mentioned as a goto. But I think maybe WP:Local is better. That deals with how to handle things that meet WP:N but aren't known outside it's locality. WP:Local would have this merge with the city article.James.folsom (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shopping malls generally need to meet GNG per NBUILDING and PLACEOUTCOMES. The reporting I've seen doesn't meet GNG, and also doesn't warrant merging this article to the Scottsbluff article in my opinion, since they're all kind of routine news stories that don't indicate that the mall is a special place rather than a place that gets reported on because it happens to be a large local business. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For several of those news articles, they are actually written about the mall. A very clear significance policy states that the subject of a reliable source is significant coverage. A source about another subject, that mentions the mall, EG that obit, needs to say the mall is special, otherwise you have a trivial mention instead of a significant mention. That's the central problem that WP:LOCAL deals with. So, if you don't want to use WP:local, then you need to show that all of the sources in that article that are written about the mall, are in fact not reliable or otherwise not eligible to make the subject notable. I would point out that WP:LOCAL gives this power. I do want to thank you for those policy suggestions, I will check them out. And, again I think this is not a standalone article, but my initial foray into background suggests this is a thorny subject, and should be done carefully and correctly. If I'm wrong, then someone tell me and I will cast a vote according to the agreed upon policy. James.folsom (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the mall to the Points of interest section of the Scottsbluff article. The rest of the information contained in the article on the mall is about the different stores that have been in the mall and the mall's different owners, none of which should be added to the Scottsbluff article because stores changing in a mall is routine and Wikipedia is not a directory. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should have a paragraph in the other article, but your right that it shouldn't be what's in the article now. I'm hoping some good discussion occur on this. James.folsom (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOCAL is an essay, not policy. It partially quotes WP:N but leaves out this bit: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. That is the policy. So as well as being reliable (which many/most of these are), they should also be secondary, and none of them are secondary sources. Per WP:PRIMARYNEWS (also an essay) and the related policy, WP:PRIMARY (see noted d), newspaper articles are primary sources. There may also be issues with independence.

I don't think this is notable, but you made the point, I think, about WP:SUSTAINED, which says Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability. Note that "an indicator of notability" is short of either presumed notability or GNG. Also such coverage must still be independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks this is helpful James.folsom (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that I know what policies apply I agree this lacks coverage by secondary sources. I can't imagine this actually having coverage from secondary sources. And I'm having a hard time to think of what secondary source for a mall would be. Other malls have survived AFDs, anybody know what kind of secondary sources those had?James.folsom (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's something that throws me off at this point in the conversation. There are malls that have articles written here on Wikipedia (have been here for years at this point) that have less coverage by any sources than this mall in Scottsbluff, or at the least, very few sources are used in those articles if other sources do exist. That brings a new question to mind, where does the line of notability get drawn? At least in this case, what makes a mall notable (or more notable than the rest)? Especially since nearly any mall is likely going to have some level of notability by some, likely including the community in which it resides since it often does act as a place to gather and hang out. SomeMetroGuy (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The line of notability is drawn at significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. The number of sources is not the issue, it's what those sources, combined together, say. The articles provided here amount to "this mall exists, its ownership has changed hands, and some stores have moved in and out." This is a run-of-the-mill mall that lacks notability. The fact that other articles exist does not mean that this one should exist; maybe those articles should also be deleted, or maybe the sources that they do have provide significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not seeing any sources that demonstrate why this mall is notable, per the discussion above. If the mall were unique, there would be significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sourcing showing this. We don't have the sources so it doesn't pass GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet WP:GNG Jacona (talk) 14:28, 30 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dihydroxyamine[edit]

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

This chemical does not exist; and is not notable as a hypothetical chemical. The only "references" are database entries that do not show the substance has any publications or is notable. I am nominating this after User:DMacks's prod was removed by the page creator. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only dihydroxyamines that I can find in chemistry textbooks are ArN(OH)₂ compounds, which aren't this. Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The species is super obscure (because of the absence of good secondary/tertiary sources), non-notable, and even deceptive. Looking forward to comments by other chemists.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, per my comments on article-talkpage and my PROD of it. Creator objected to PROD, as is their right, but their only activity on WP seems to be rigorously applying uncited terminology rules in contexts where they don't apply or are not even correct. DMacks (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonexistent compound and not particularly notable as a hypothetical compound; all information provided is trivially derived from its chemical formula. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, can also confirm original creator seems to just add "other names" to various compounds, a lot of which are not names in use. EvilxFish (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likely delete, possible merge. Can someone run a structure/CAS No. search against the CAS database [No. 99711-79-2], to be sure that this has not, as a hypothetical substance, been the subject of theoretical/computational study? The late Jeremy Burdett devoted a fair bit of effort (and book and journal pages) to hypothetical structures, to very effective ends that advanced the materials field (and AO/MO theory generally, e.g., ISBN 978-0471078609). Perhaps also, the material that was removed from this article, early, as plagiarized—see doi:10.1063/1.2723120 and article history—should be examined for its relevance. (It's removal may have been proper, but the material may still have been relevant, only improperly used.)

While the article should indeed probably go, if such a structure has been studied, the only place a layperson will find it is in Wikipedia. So if verifiable, perhaps the lines should appear in (be merged into) the article of the most closely related real compound. Regards. 98.206.31.187 (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can look up http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2723120 to see what it was about and it was hydrated nitrite ion clusters. Another reference removed was about HNO₂^-• which was given a very similar name "Dihydroxylamine" but different enough to not be on this topic. One of the issues with this page is that there is no content worth merging anywhere else. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:29, 2 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. I trust User:Keizers to carry out the merge/redirect. (non-admin closure) Schierbecker (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Kowaz[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Schierbecker (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine I’ll just merge most of it into his current employer since that’s what he is known for.Keizers (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Schierbecker (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Marokwitz (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect to Israel Policy Forum#Eli Kowaz where I added the relevant content.Keizers (talk) 21:22, 30 January 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. Participants have attained a consensus that the extent of sourcing available for this company does not meet WP:NCORP at this time, despite it being a listed company. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brand24[edit]

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

Only one independent sigcov source, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. A search for other sources only returns trivial/routine coverage. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and Poland. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still no indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – There seems to be a review on PCMag, but rest of the sources are just press releases, it seems. TLA (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Note: I am main author of this article. According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), publicly traded companies nearly always can be established as a notable. This was also my understanding while I was adding this article - it is about company that can be searched in multiple investing tools. In this short stub-article nearly all sentences are with references reliable sources, but I am happy to add more, if needed. Mlepicki (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit: Adding sample media coverage:
  - Business Insider - https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-review-all-marketing-partners-instagram-data-scraping-2019-8?IR=T
  - Wyborcza.pl, one of biggest newspapers in Poland: https://wyborcza.biz/biznes/7,177150,25313272,internety-robil-az-zablokowal-go-facebook-michal-sadowski.html
  - Polish edition of Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.pl/biznes/twarza-polskiego-biznesu-internetowego-jest-od-lat-wlasnie-debiutowal-na-gieldzie/5p031p4 Mlepicki (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It is generally helpful for the readers to have articles on publicly listed companies, and while WP:ITSUSFUL is not enough, souces cited by the author above seem solid (ex. Gazeta Wyborcza is a major Polish newspaper). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Normally for listed companies we can locate detailed analyst reviews (which do more than report on stock price listings and forecasts and which analyse their business) which are a gold standard for notability but I cannot find anything for this company. The references posted by Mlepicki fails ORGIND as they rely entirely on information provided by the company and interviews with their execs with no "Independent Content" and fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with what's already been written. It fails GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:04, 2 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. Wizardman 17:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Records (Norway)[edit]

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

Tiny record label which fails WP:NCORP. Geschichte (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Norway. Owen× ☎ 12:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this record label didn't last long, but it certainly did field a roster of noteworthy artists, some of which charted substantially in Norway. Can we get someone who has facility with Norwegian to look for in-language literature? My instinct is to default to a weak keep here as the label seems close to meeting WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indies. Chubbles (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; WP:MUSIC is not a guideline for labels Geschichte (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see why we would reject subject-specific material in a guideline, and it certainly makes more sense for music experts to be assessing label notability than corporation experts. I actually proposed a set of guidelines at WP:MUSIC for labels a few years back; I should probably resurrect that conversation. Chubbles (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's something you ought to address in relevant talk pages or Village Pump. Graywalls (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP without significant coverage in multiple, completely independent, reliable sources of broad audience interest. I agree with ~~OwenX~~ Geschichte that NMUSIC is not applicable here simply because the institution/organization/company is of music related field. Graywalls (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I merely added the discussion to a few deletion sorting lists. I don't have strong feelings about the article either way. Owen× ☎ 14:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I attributed to wrong user. Disregard. Graywalls (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Happy to share that I found one good source. That's not enough for a keep. It should also be noted that article is extremely short. Leaning delete for now. If someone finds another good source, ping me. gidonb (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now that we have one good source, I checked options for merger. There is an American group this is somewhat affiliated with, known as Beyond Collective or as Beyond the Music. We have Beyond Music and that is something else. As is the UK music label. Without a merge target this should default to delete. gidonb (talk) 01:06, 2 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CloudZero[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are funding announcements and lots of passing mentions. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Long on smoke, short on light. A lot of casual mentions, but no significant coverage in reliable sources. No evidence of this outfit meeting the GNG. Ravenswing 23:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not all sources are announcements or funding info or passing mentions. Even some of the announcement have details about the company. In particular, I like these ones TMCNet, ~~AWS.Amazon.com~~, hostingjounalist, TechRadar. Royal88888 (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go one by one.

TMCNet -- PR reprint. There's no independent analysis. Compare https://cloud-computing.tmcnet.com/breaking-news/articles/456274-cloudzero-helps-customers-get-most-value-out-cloud.htm and https://www.cloudzero.com/press-releases/20230612/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CCloudZero%20recognizes%20that%20every%20engineering,is%20purpose%2Dbuilt%20for%20engineers
AWS -- CloudZero is an AWS partner and customer. The AWS blog is not WP:ORGIND of CloudZero.
hostingjournalist -- PR reprint. There's no independent analysis. Compare https://hostingjournalist.com/cloudzero-unveils-analytics-bi-feature-for-optimized-cloud-cost-management/ to https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cloudzero-releases-enhanced-analytics-automating-delivery-of-cloud-cost-intelligence-301864615.html
TechRadar -- this one seems good, if on the short side

~ A412 ^talk! 22:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TMCNet - I compared to your given PR, with the exception of a quotation nothing is copied.
AWS, you may have a point here. I will Strike this one out.
hostingjournalist - This is not a reprint and much different. If a journalist or a publication writes an articles based on a Press Release, it is no longer a press release, as we should assume they have done their due diligence and verification.

Royal88888 (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding the straight quotes (autocollapsed for size):

comparisons
TMCNET: In 2023, it is projected that worldwide cloud spend will amount to nearly $600 billion, highlighting the magnitude of this expenditure category, according to a Gartner report. Also, the fact that 73% of companies, surveyed by CloudZero, consider cloud costs as a board-level issue further emphasizes the importance and impact of cloud spend on businesses. Press release: In a world where every business is focused on driving cost savings, CloudZero is addressing one of the largest and most opaque expense buckets for modern organizations — cloud spend — which will reach nearly $600 billion worldwide in 2023. That is why 73% of companies surveyed identify cloud costs as a board-level issue. TMCNET: CloudZero's ability to provide granular insights for any cloud provider empowers software teams to collaboratively manage cloud spend down to how a specific product feature or customer impacts margin. What this means is that engineering teams can see real-time, hourly data showing the consequences of software development decisions and can proactively optimize costs before waste occurs. Press release: CloudZero’s unique ability to provide granular insights for any cloud provider empowers software teams to collaboratively manage cloud spend down to how a specific product feature or customer impacts margin. This means engineering teams can see real-time, hourly data showing the consequences of software development decisions and can proactively optimize costs before waste occurs — something no other cost management solution can provide. TMCNET: CloudZero AnyCost ingests 100% of cloud spend (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS (News - Alert)) in real time, normalizes it in a common data model and presents it in a single pane of glass. This gives every stakeholder the most complete, accurate and granular source of truth. Press release: CloudZero AnyCost™ ingests 100% of cloud spend (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS) in real time, normalizes it in a common data model, and presents it in a single pane of glass. This gives every stakeholder the most complete, accurate, and granular source of truth. and so on. hostingjournalist: CloudZero’s Analytics solution would now make it simpler than ever for CloudZero clients to analyze, share, and act on cost insights from 100% of their expenditure, ranging from the most basic FinOps use cases to the most sophisticated visualizations of unit cost patterns. Press release: Now, from the simplest FinOps use cases to the most advanced depictions of unit cost trends, Analytics makes it easier than ever for CloudZero customers to view, share, and act on cost insights from 100% of their spend. hostingjournalist: The CloudZero Standard Dashboard Library is now available to all the company’s clients right out of the box, allowing them to immediately get answers to simple inquiries about things like monthly cost trends, reservation performance, tag coverage, and invoice reconciliation. However, the most distinctive feature of CloudZero Analytics would be its self-service capabilities, which can be utilized to provide in-depth cost information based on the robust and reliable data model of CloudZero. Press release: All customers now get out-of-the-box access to CloudZero's Standard Dashboard Library, which lets them quickly answer basic questions around topics like monthly cost trends, reservation performance, tag coverage, and invoice reconciliation. But most unique to CloudZero Analytics are its self-service capabilities which can be used to generate deep cost intelligence based on CloudZero's powerful and trusted data model.

comparisons

TMCNET: In 2023, it is projected that worldwide cloud spend will amount to nearly $600 billion, highlighting the magnitude of this expenditure category, according to a Gartner report. Also, the fact that 73% of companies, surveyed by CloudZero, consider cloud costs as a board-level issue further emphasizes the importance and impact of cloud spend on businesses.

Press release: In a world where every business is focused on driving cost savings, CloudZero is addressing one of the largest and most opaque expense buckets for modern organizations — cloud spend — which will reach nearly $600 billion worldwide in 2023. That is why 73% of companies surveyed identify cloud costs as a board-level issue.

TMCNET: CloudZero's ability to provide granular insights for any cloud provider empowers software teams to collaboratively manage cloud spend down to how a specific product feature or customer impacts margin. What this means is that engineering teams can see real-time, hourly data showing the consequences of software development decisions and can proactively optimize costs before waste occurs.

Press release: CloudZero’s unique ability to provide granular insights for any cloud provider empowers software teams to collaboratively manage cloud spend down to how a specific product feature or customer impacts margin. This means engineering teams can see real-time, hourly data showing the consequences of software development decisions and can proactively optimize costs before waste occurs — something no other cost management solution can provide.

TMCNET: CloudZero AnyCost ingests 100% of cloud spend (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS (News - Alert)) in real time, normalizes it in a common data model and presents it in a single pane of glass. This gives every stakeholder the most complete, accurate and granular source of truth.

Press release: CloudZero AnyCost™ ingests 100% of cloud spend (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS) in real time, normalizes it in a common data model, and presents it in a single pane of glass. This gives every stakeholder the most complete, accurate, and granular source of truth.

and so on.

hostingjournalist: CloudZero’s Analytics solution would now make it simpler than ever for CloudZero clients to analyze, share, and act on cost insights from 100% of their expenditure, ranging from the most basic FinOps use cases to the most sophisticated visualizations of unit cost patterns.

Press release: Now, from the simplest FinOps use cases to the most advanced depictions of unit cost trends, Analytics makes it easier than ever for CloudZero customers to view, share, and act on cost insights from 100% of their spend.

hostingjournalist: The CloudZero Standard Dashboard Library is now available to all the company’s clients right out of the box, allowing them to immediately get answers to simple inquiries about things like monthly cost trends, reservation performance, tag coverage, and invoice reconciliation. However, the most distinctive feature of CloudZero Analytics would be its self-service capabilities, which can be utilized to provide in-depth cost information based on the robust and reliable data model of CloudZero.

Press release: All customers now get out-of-the-box access to CloudZero's Standard Dashboard Library, which lets them quickly answer basic questions around topics like monthly cost trends, reservation performance, tag coverage, and invoice reconciliation. But most unique to CloudZero Analytics are its self-service capabilities which can be used to generate deep cost intelligence based on CloudZero's powerful and trusted data model.

There's journalism, and then there's this. There's no original opinion, commentary, or analysis in these "articles". Please read the second bullet point of WP:ORGIND. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, there are similarities, given that certain sections may have originated from press releases. However, once a journalist rewrites the content, it transforms beyond a mere press release. If the use of such articles as citations were restricted, a substantial portion of existing Wikipedia citations would likely be affected. Consider, for instance, when Tesla issues a press release introducing a new model. In the subsequent days, numerous articles emerge, all stemming from the press release but presented as rewrites. It's worth noting that a considerable portion of news articles, including those by journalists, is often derived from press releases. Plus could you point me to the specific Wikipedia guideline that states such articles cannot be used? All I have seen are that press releases and primary sources cannot be used. Maybe there is something I am not aware of? Royal88888 (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already pointed it to you. It's the second bullet point of WP:ORGIND. At this point, I'm going to let other people comment, because it appears we fundamentally disagree if any meaningful rewriting of the press release was performed in these articles. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should NOT assume that an article written based on a press release is the result of due diligence. It means the source is primary, full stop. Ravenswing 02:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - Check these other articles, which are not based on any announcements Techradar, ebterprisetalk.com, Tech Target, and Infoworld. Royal88888 (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the creator of this page. Not sure if I Am allowed to vote, but could not find anything that said I could not. All sources here show significant coverage: Techradar, ebterprisetalk.com, Tech Target, and Infoworld, TMCNet, Hosting Journal. Bikerose (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a new article I just found in Business Insider, that has descent info on them 8 companies analysts say 53 billion atlassian could buy 2022 Bikerose (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nomination. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per poor reliable sources not meeting WP:SIRS and Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) 2A01:E0A:375:3810:B82B:91C2:DC5C:A05F (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 3 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Ree[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 02:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meets WP:DIRECTOR obviously. Keep. His films received coverage in Variety, in The NYT, etc, etc. "Non-notable", how???-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at this I was unsure. I found two in variety references:

[42] This one is an obvious interview.
[43] This one is an annoucement with a description of the production details. Its the usual film release notice.

It doesn't inspire confidence but he could be massive and I've just missed it and his film possibly. Post three reference and I'll withdraw. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 13:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His filmS. At least 3 are VERY notable films. Three references about them? That's a bizarre requirement. But OK. Allow me to post 4. ONE; TWO; THREE FOUR. PLENTY of coverage exists. The Reception sections of the articleS about his first 2 3 features should, in my view, have been considered. Even the article about him shows enough to demonstrate notability. But all is well...-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: there's a non-trivial amount of coverage about his films, including Variety [44], I think he's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found articles in The Ottawa Citizen and The Port Charlotte Sun about The Painter and the Thief, and the Boston Globe about Magnus. Toughpigs (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So it looks like Benjamin Ree (love that name) is notable. Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 17:29, 28 January 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 Jason Priestley#Personal life. Star Mississippi 14:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Priestley[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Minimal additional sourcing available besides IMdB type stuff. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jason Priestley#Personal life, where she is mentioned.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A redirect seems reasonable enough - but this looks like a very extensive, main-stream article, through a major news agency, in the Kitchener Record (among other large papers) - here. Nfitz (talk) 21:27, 3 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 Football at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads# Great Britain. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ifor Fielding[edit]

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

The subject does not meet WP:NOLY and I was unable to find sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. Redirect to Football at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#_Great_Britain as an ATD. JTtheOG (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Olympics, and Wales. JTtheOG (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. I think a WP:BLAR would have been fine here. Clearly doesn't meet the NOLY part of WP:ATHLETE, and that is all that is asserted for notability. Not seeing any other sources such that it would pass under other criteria. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - As per proposal. Shazback (talk) 04:12, 4 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 23:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 New York City stabbing spree[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a news site and it's too soon for an article on a series of crimes that will likely not have lasting or persistent coverage. This particular series of crimes are not particularly high-profile outside of NYC, and it's run-of-the-mill coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, United States of America, and New York. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG as it has only routine, contemporary coverage. No secondary sources to demonstrate long term historical significance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original PROD and the nomination. A crime was committed and a person of interest was arrested. Many crimes like this happen. This was not notable to the point where there was an active crime for days, weeks, or months. Not inherently notable and certainly a violation of Not News. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A fairly routine crime with little possibility of any repercussions to society at large. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MILL. Unfortunately (at least in my view), such crimes are quite common in NYC, and I don't think there is a WP:LASTING component to these crimes. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, WP:LASTING also says that [i]t may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Let's wait and see if notability persists for a while. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the sources you have posted below. From what I can tell, all of these are WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources (specifically, breaking news or eyewitness news sources describing each of the stabbings and the arrest); they are certainly reliable and independent, but secondary sources would also be needed to prove the lasting notability of an event. WP:PERSISTENCE states that a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. I am not seeing any such further analyses in any of the sources you posted below, so I remain unconvinced that this is a topic that merits its own article. Epicgenius (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is not a "routine" crime in New York. A search on ABC7 indicates that stabbings are largely one-time events that happened within a single setting. This occurred over the span of days, which would refute the argument WikiCleanerMan has made. Also, there are plenty of independent sources that could be seen by a Google search of the article title. This includes, but not limiting to: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. There is even coverage on CNN about this incident. I would say this would pass GNG, given the reliable sources that cover this. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, most sources I have given contains in depth coverage. For example, the CNN source that I have posted here provided context to what happened during the stabbings. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the sources presented above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the relisting comment: As an initial matter, a search of ABC7 to determine whether stabbings are generally singular events, and thus unique, is OR. We need RSes to establish that claim to notability. (In any event, WP:NCRIME does not create an exception for unique criminal acts. By contrast, WP:CRIME, which applies to perpetrators, does, but the example provided there is Seung-Hui Cho, and this stabbing spree is nothing like the Virginia Tech shooting.) The additional sources provided also do not establish notability. First, having national coverage is not enough under WP:GEOSCOPE, which states that such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. The sources cited are also all recent news reports, and WP:PERSISTENCE states that Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A recent google search 10 days after these events finds no sustained coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please stop writing these fearmonger articles about everyday crime in New York. Nobody died, suspect in custody. Nate • (chatter) 21:23, 28 January 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 00:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegrass (Sirius)[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV regarding the station itself from independent, secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. Let'srun (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 28 January 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 Palace Theatre, Calgary. ✗plicit 10:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flames Central[edit]

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

Not notable. But I would like to know what a national hybrid entertainment restaurant is. TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Entertainment, Business, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I notified WT:HOCKEY Wracking ^talk! 05:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Note A possible action here is to rename to Palace Theatre (Calgary) to expand the scope to the building itself, which is registered as a historic place.[50][51] Wracking ^talk! 05:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If secondary coverage can be found, I’d be inclined to support this. The Kip 18:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not too much coverage to meet notability.Royal88888 (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to newly-created Palace Theatre, Calgary (where Flames Central was located), which mentions Flames Central. Jiffles1 (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palace Theatre, Calgary, which has a paragraph about Flames Central. Persingo (talk) 01:53, 31 January 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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KVQT-LD[edit]

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

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 15:57, 20 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 00:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this deletion request brings up a larger issue, because the vast majority of LPTV stations in the US are in effectively the same situation. In larger markets, these stations usually get very little if any media attention and most people honestly don't even know they exist. Some examples of others that probably would equally count as non-notable, just in Houston: KUVM-LD, KVVV-LD, KUGB-CD, KEHO-LD, KUVM-CD, KZHO-LD, and KBPX-LD. Other cities throughout the country have similar numbers of these stations, many of which have Wikipedia articles. I don't think it makes sense to delete KVQT-LD while leaving all these others around, so, for fairness, I think this decision needs to be made based on the larger question of whether LPTV stations are inherently notable. And if it is decided that they are not, then a large number of deletions for LPTV stations throughout the US ought to be triggered. Some Person (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, Hold on... No Vote, let me explain:

So... Like what Some Person (yes, that's the person's name, I ain't kidding) and WcQuidditch said, Low-Power Television stations are more likely to have no sources, therefore, unexpected (or expected, depending on some stuff) consequences, are more likely to not make Wikipedia's Notability Rules. I mean this with all honesty, I hope that Wikipedia doesn't look at this stations and others and presume that All Low-Power Stations are not-notable. Some of them are notable but if they made a rule that says that Low-Power TV Stations are non-notable, I feel like that wouldn't end well for a lot of stations. And to also add a bit of irony in this situation, if there's a really short radio article, we don't pit a AfD on it, we call it a stub article, and we also wound do that on Full-Power TV stations, but only Low-Power ones are put under either PROD or AfD. Like, it feels like we are probably taking a All or Nothing approach on Low-Power Stations; Take a look of the K04QR-D AfD, it started out of a station in California, which led to a jumbled mess which literally 75%-85% of all HC2/Innovate Corporation LOW-POWER stations were involved in, which led to a No-Consensus. Like, ~~if that went successful, that should've also took all of the Full-Power stations since, they technically lost their notability~~ that made no sense. Either we just hate Low-Power Television or what the deal? Again, I'm neutral on this and I will not take any sides, okay? mer764KCTV^(Talk) 03:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Many of these low-power stations are less likely to get the requisite significant coverage, particularly when the programming isn't exactly local (and, in a large market, being in the shadow of numerous much-larger stations). For what it's worth (in response to Some Person's concern), there have been a parade of AfDs (and PRODs) involving low-power stations lately (this nomination was neither the first nor last), and it's not exactly a stretch to say that the reason so many articles on them still exist is because there's so many of them: only so many can realistically be at AfD at one time, and large bundled nominations (such as this one for stations owned by one particular group owner) don't work either. Much of this is also about our tightening of notability guidelines; the declined PROD that blocked soft deletion was all the way back in 2006, with the rationale duly FCC-licensed television stations are always permitted on WP whether they seem notable enough or not. For too long, merely being licensed was considered enough to be presumed "notable" in this topic area; that finally faded away after a 2021 RfC where NMEDIA was found to not have consensus to be an SNG, in turn clarifying that the more-source-based GNG is the actual barometer. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 4 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 Pillar (band). Star Mississippi 14:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Beckley[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG independent of Pillar (band). There is the possibility of a merge/redirect to Pillar, however 'Rob Beckley' is ambiguous (there is Rob Beckley (police officer), and a merge might unbalance this article. Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kansas. Owen× ☎ 19:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Pillar (band) as not independently notable imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge properly sourced summary to Pillar (band). 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 and are in connection with the proposed target. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 14:00, 4 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basile High School[edit]

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

This high school lacks notability. I could not find significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources, just trivial mentions in local newspapers. Per SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the general consensus is that high schools are not inherently notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Louisiana. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it then, and I'll stop wasting my time creating pages. EddieDean19 (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I originally BLARed this article, so I propose redirecting it back to Evangeline Parish Public Schools. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this one could have been left a little longer before nomination, per WP:DEMOLISH, and already there is a WP:HEY case for keeping it. However, it is important to note that the sources on the page are largely local press. News reports and articles like these are primary sources, and so we don't currently have the multiple reliable independent secondary sources required for this to pass GNG, and the nom mentions SCHOOLOUTCOMES so notability is not presumed. However the school is 99 years old, and coverage is sustained over that period. Per WP:SUSTAINED Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability. An indicator of notability is not a clear GNG pass, but it is what it says: a good indicator that this is notable. In addition to local press, I found mentions in books (but beware the Italian school of the same name). The book mentions were largely directories, local plans etc, or in some cases newspaper collections, e.g. [52]. Again, nothing for GNG but plenty for SUSTAINED. It aso gets included in the study in this paper [53] although that is because of the district rather than the school. Thus, all in all, I think there is good indication of notability here, even though it is not a clear GNG pass. It may be weak support, but it is still a keep for me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough regarding demolish; Self-trout. That said, ~~as you've noted,~~ I don't think this is a HEY case because, as you've noted, all of the sources are primary. SUSTAINED does not displace the GNG; like the GNG, it offers another presumption (an "indicator") that something (usually an event) may be notable. There might be an "indication" of notability here, but we still need SIGCOV in secondary sources to get past GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC), struck 23:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While breaking news is indeed considered primary, newspaper articles in general are not considered WP:PRIMARY as they are subject to editorial review, etc. The purpose of this is stated: Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. That makes a lot of sense. What we are dealing with here is definitely not breaking news. Newspaper sources should not be dismissed wholesale as PRIMARY sources. Jacona (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, as with pretty much any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The connection to Newspapers.com from the Wikipedia Library has been restored after a short blip...and there are over 14,000 matches for "Basile High School". While it will take some time to go through these, it appears there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage from around the beginning of the 20th century to the present. While some of these are WP:ROUTINE, some are good sources that will count as significant coverage. This article will pass the general notability guideline.Jacona (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at a random sampling of newspaper articles from Newspapers.com, most of which appears to be WP:MILL coverage in the Basile Weekly; it seems that the Weekly has regular updates about the goings-on in the schools, largely what student clubs are doing and awards/achievements of students. Here's my analysis of some sources from the sampling:
- MILL coverage of commencement
- Primary source (proceedings of local school board meeting published in newspaper)
- MILL coverage of student clubs
- MILL coverage of student clubs
- MILL coverage of school board refusing to pay bills and brief mention that the school should hire more janitors
- MILL coverage of student clubs
voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Bring back the SNG for schools so we can end this sort of time-draining nomination. Carrite (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

amen.Jacona (talk) 00:22, 3 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Frederick Vining[edit]

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

This person probably existed, but it seems like they weren't notable. We have fondagrave.com and a vintage photo from a book of vintage photos, which doesn't substantially cover the subject of the article Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Theatre. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long paragraph about him in the DNB article about his brother George Vining. The article is probably worth retaining since it can be expanded (which I intend to do, since I created the WP article George Vining). AtticTapestry (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Material added regarding his reputation and material from his obituary.Leutha (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page has been improved with references that seem to show he satisfies the requirement for notability (Note: Find a Grave, although it's generally accurate, I find, is a bit like IMDb, and not accepted as a source on this Wikipedia). Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Dababase entry	1. Frecker, Paul. "Frederick Vining". Library of Nineteenth-Century Photography. Paul Frecker. Retrieved 7 October 2021.
Source appears to be society Who's Who style promo bio from 1824. Fails WP:RS. Subject is mentioned, not named, brief information, no SIGCOV about subject, doesn't use the subject's first first name.	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c The Biography of the British Stage: Being Correct Narratives of the Lives of All the Principal Actors & Actresses .. Interspersed with Original Anecdotes and Choice and Illustrative Poetry. To which is Added, a Comic Poem, Entitled "The Actress.". London: Sherwood, Jones & Co. 1824.
Blog post/database entry	3. ^ Jump up to:a b c Frecker, Paul. "Frederick Vining (1790-1871)". paulfrecker.com. Paul Frecker.
Find a grave	4. ^ "Frederick Augustus Vining (1790-1871) - Find A..." www.findagrave.com. Find a Grave. Retrieved 7 October 2021.

Nothing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. #2 above comes the closest, but a single source from 1824 does meet WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 12:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG and criteria 3 of ANYBIO. He has an article in the ODNB and in Boase's Modern English Biography:[54] [55]. These are the standard biographical dictionaries. There is a biography in Roach, listed here: [56]. Profile in The Theatrical Times: [57]. Obituary in The Era, 11 June 1871, p 11: [58]. Both cited by Boase. There is other coverage: [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]. He was "well known": [66]. There is a lot of other coverage, including, amongst other things, coverage of his performances, and even a garotte attack on him in 1867, in the British Newspaper Archive. Our article already even cites his obituary in the Birmingham Daily Gazette: [67]. A newspaper article from 1871 does not become a "blog post/database entry" just because it is quoted on a website. There is no indication that there is anything wrong with the Biography of the British Stage, which is cited by other sources (including 40 articles in the ODNB) that are certainly reliable. Praise, even when very enthusiastic, is not the same thing as promotion. It certainly is significant coverage, and it would be perfectly obvious which Mr Vining the book is talking about, even if that fact was not confirmed by this: [68]. James500 (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given sources James500 has provided. Seems to fulfill GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This actor is notable enough to have several reviews written about him and, although not all favourable, it is not clear where the full breadth of information about him is published if not on Wikipedia. Tithon (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A scholar or author will find this article a godsend when writing a footnote. Just because he's deeply historically obscure, doesn't lessen his notability. MisterWizzy (talk) 05:07, 4 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.