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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix of country subdivisions[edit]

Matrix of country subdivisions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Apparently has not cited any source since 2009. Could be considered original research, since which English word is used to describe the top-level division of each country has to be determined in ambiguous cases. Considerably less comprehensive than List of administrative divisions by country, which it duplicates. -- Beland (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Apparently the creator and main author, User:Tobias Conradi, has been blocked indefinitely. -- Beland (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic article. Probably original research. Ajf773 (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The other list is much better, and this one smells of OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Brings nothing additional to the article it duplicates, and the page is really inscrutable.James.folsom (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater|(tαlk) 18:12, 11 March 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. Closing as a keep since the consensus lean towards keep now, with the presence of sources denoting notability (presumably) exists. The addition of the sources can be done further in the article, which requires expansion to incorporate those citations. Other subjects such as the notability of the award(s) itself can be discussed outside AfD, if required, in the respective talk pages. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oskar von dem Hagen[edit]

Oskar von dem Hagen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV found in reliable sources (some passing mentions exist). Iron Cross alone does not establish notability. — Moriwen (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Germany. — Moriwen (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• And where did you search? Geschichte (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Usual places -- books, scholar, news, jstor, reliable sources search, took a look at the German article to see if there were any more sources cited there.— Moriwen (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Geschichte, are you able to find significant coverage to support notability? I haven't, but I expect that my geo/language settings limits the results that might be available in other languages. Schazjmd (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, yes it, receiving the Iron Cross does account for notability, as per WP:Notability (people). Antny08 (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antny08 (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Side note, person mentioned in article has article about him in German that has not been removed from Wikipedia, because he has enough notability. Antny08 (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each language Wikipedia has its own rules for notability. And Iron Cross tells us that in WWI, nearly 5.5 million Iron Cross (combining 1st class and 2d class) awards were made, so I don't think receiving that award alone is sufficient for notability. Schazjmd (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Wikipedia does not state that the amount of people who have received the award is a factor into notability. It is still an important and significant award, which passed the guidelines present. Antny08 (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want us to create a second Wikipedia's worth of articles over such a meaningless award? Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He actually recieved the Oak Leaves on his iron cross, which only 95 people ever recieved posthumously. Antny08 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antny08, you're referring to WP:ANYBIO (1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor). Please note the lead under Additional criteria which points out: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Schazjmd (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it does not guarantee automatic notability, it contributes heavily. This factor combined with this website (https://www.tracesofwar.com/persons/50101/Hagen-von-dem-Oskar.htm) which is a reliable biography on this person should prove all notability needed. Antny08 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-German-Officer-Oskar-von-dem-Hagen This site is also another source specifically about him. Antny08 (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! Turns out, he received the oak leaves on his Iron Cross posthumously, which only 95 people ever received, as shown in Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. This is far more rare and significant than 5.5 million people. I believe this should more than enough prove his notability. Antny08 (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: He existed, [1], but that's about all I can find. A name in a long list doesn't get you notability here, we'd need a biographical article or something else about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  https://www.tracesofwar.com/persons/50101/Hagen-von-dem-Oskar.htm

  Please refer to this source here. Antny08 (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'd like to keep articles about WW2 people, but this man doesn't pass WP:GNG. There's the generals.dk source, which is unreliable, and nothing else. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As stated earlier:

  "Person mentioned in article has received the Iron Cross award, which per Wikipedia:Notability (people), is enough to make him automatically notable enough for Wikipedia. While the first source may be unreliable, the second source present in the article, which also states he has received the Iron Cross like the first one, is in fact reliable." Antny08 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As I mentioned on the article's talk page, I was unable to find any significant coverage, and I couldn't find anything in the German WP article to support notability. Nearly 5.5 million Iron Cross (combining 1st class and 2d class) awards were made, so that isn't significant enough for notability on its own. The links that have been mentioned in this discussion so far are basically entries in non-selective database-type websites. Oskar von dem Hagen isn't mentioned anywhere else on wikipedia so there aren't any relevant redirect targets. It's possible that there are German-language history books that might provide significant coverage but not that I can find (possibly due to my geo location and language settings), so unless another editor is able to come up with significant coverage in reliable sources, I think the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Schazjmd (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I just replied to one of your other comments, it turns out, "he received the oak leaves on his Iron Cross posthumously, which only 95 people ever received, as shown in Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. This is far more rare and significant than 5.5 million people. I believe this should more than enough prove his notability." Also, he is mentioned in the Battle of Zeeland. Antny08 (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for catching that mention; I didn't find it because they used his first initial instead of Oskar. Nothing in the article about him though, so still not a very good redirect target. Schazjmd (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject fails GNG. WP:MILPEOPLE is no longer the rule here. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I wouldn't say the article passes WP: SIGCOV. But passes WP: GNG. For an army general who contributed in the First & Second world war obviously was notable. For someone who was most active in 1800's and 1900's, there should be WP:SYSTEMICBIAS especially with the lack of online sources. I wouldn't vote for now, till I get to read the cited books. Otuọcha (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He was an officer in WWI and WWII but not a general during those wars. He was a colonel in WWII and promoted posthumously. Schazjmd (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's difficult to see how a colonel who was killed in battle was notable absent other information. The German-language article is barely referenced; the Almanach de Gotha entry is presumably about his family, not him. I don't have access to Deutschlands Generale und Admirale but it sounds like an encyclopedia with entries on general officers; that can't be used to establish notability either. The claim that he's one of 95 posthumous receipients of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves is not indicative of anything. For one, the claim in the main article is unsourced. For another, there were 882 total recipients of that grade of the award, including 78 army colonels and 43 generals. The article prose is concerning as well: "significant roles" (which?), "tragically lost his life" (MOS:EDITORIAL). Mackensen (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  882 recipients, but only 95 awarded after death. Antny08 (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, as you've said and as I noted. The claim the 95 were awarded posthumously is unsourced. If true, it's about 10% of the recipients. What is sourced in the article is that issuance of that grade peaked during the Battle of France, which would seem to lessen the individual importance. Mackensen (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How would that lessen the importance? Antny08 (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves qualifies under WP:ANYBIO #1 although an ordinary Knight's Cross would not. Considerably fewer of that grade have been awarded than the Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor and we wouldn't dream of deleting anyone who had won those awards. I have restored the article. We do not redirect articles under consideration at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article creator has blanked the article and also prematurely closed this AFD discussion with a closure of Redirect. I have warned them that a third attempt at derailing this AFD will result in a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is my article, should I not be able to decide what to do with it? Antny08 (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No. It is not your article. See WP:OWNERSHIP. Nobody owns the articles on Wikipedia. Once you've posted them they belong to all of us. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then why do creators of articles are able to faster delete the articles using speedy deletion? They have more privileges than others. Antny08 (talk) 12:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No, they don't really. They can request a speedy deletion, but so can any other editor. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Has anyone looked at the book sources in the German article, which seem to be the main source of information for what seems to be a good quantity of text? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, but somebody should. I do not speak German. Antny08 (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We cannot say someone who meets WP:ANYBIO with a major award is non-notable when we haven't even looked at the main sources! The presumption of notability there has to mean something! This should not be deleted unless someone actually looks at the German book sources and determines that they do not cover him in-depth; although considering how much of the German article is based off those sources, I'd be inclined to believe that they do cover him significantly. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I totally agree. We need somebody to look into the book source to gather this information. Thank you. Antny08 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I've found a couple of seemingly good sources that devote a fair few pages to covering his interwar activities and not only his death or awards: [2] [3]. Since I'm not a German speaker (I understand basic stuff but that is about it) I cannot really flesh out the article based on those, but maybe someone else can. Ostalgia (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ostalgia interesting find, though I'm not sure they help. The second source is a master's thesis (Magisterarbeit) and probably not usable as a source. Both sources are concerned with the same event: a military mission to the United States in 1928. Our article doesn't mention that mission specifically, but it does note that he was serving in the Abteilung Fremde Heere [de] during the relevant period. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am aware that it's a master's thesis, and I would not recommend using it for any particularly contentious claim, but it does, I believe, help establish notability and to an extent can be used for purely factual information (or so I believe). Similarly, it could probably be used to 'fish' for further references that may not be available online. This being said, my position is still that of a weak keep. If consensus is that there's not enough to make a decent article for this fellow and the article's time has come, then so be it. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Person mentioned in article has received the Iron Cross award (with Oak Leaves), which per Wikipedia:Notability (people), is enough to make him automatically presumably notable enough for Wikipedia. While the first source presented may less reliable, the second source present in the article, which also states he has received the Iron Cross like the first source, is in fact reliable. Other sources in German also exist, but due to language barrier, I cannot understand them.

Antny08 (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources present combined with the German sources seem to establish some notability. Since he has recieved such a significant award, I believe that he is probably notable enough to be on Wikipedia.

2601:8C:97F:30D0:5D1A:4762:7C6A:64E1 (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)— 2601:8C:97F:30D0:5D1A:4762:7C6A:64E1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This account could be a fake account. They do say they lost their old account and need to make a new one. I am not sure. Antny08 (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – From Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, they were the highest awards in the military and paramilitary forces of Nazi Germany during World War II. And this includes with Oak Leaves so passes ANYBIO #1. If this wasn't the case, then it would have been deleted. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion was solidly in the Deletion camp until recently when editors coming to this discussion favored Keeping this article. Relisting to help come to a decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Article and comments mention Knights Cross of the Iron Cross, but ref.2 in the article only seem to list his two Iron Crosses, which represent a far lower (and more common) level of citation. None of the others appears to be a Knights Cross, but my German is rusty -- if I've missed it, apologies. I would be interested to know if this can be clarified, for example if anyone has ref.3 book available (or other source). LizardJr8 (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at the publication date, I do not think a 1924 book will bring any clarity to an event that happened in 1940. I'll try to see if there's anything else confirming this award. Ostalgia (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: I think I know what happened. Our subject did not, in fact, receive the Knight's Cross to his IC, but he received (on top of his IC) a different award, the Knight's Cross of the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern with Swords (this is probably referenced in that 1924, since he must've received it bwfore the Empire went bust). I would assume that whoever introduced that to the article used a machine translation from German and ended up combining the two awards into one (the most familiar one to military history buffs). Probably a good faith mistake with a side dish of WP:CIR. Ostalgia (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But he couldn't have received oak leaves to the Knight's Cross of the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern in WWII, as it was no longer awarded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, that's why I said he received it bwfore [sic] the Empire went bust. Over at the German Wiki he is reported as having received that award, and that line is supported by the 1924 source in question. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but this article says he received the Knight's Cross of the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern with Swords and then, in 1940, the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves posthumously. That looks like two different awards. It may be wrong, but it doesn't look like it's conflated the two awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A confusion based on a mistranslation is the only explanation I could come to while assuming good faith. I see no evidence that he was actually awarded a KC to his IC (and with Oak leaves, to boot). Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I’m not too sure about this. I know he definitely received the Iron Cross. He also received many other awards. Could the fact that he was a colonel during the Battle of France, an extremely significant and major battle, count for nobility? Antny08 (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct me if I am incorrect with any of this information, but according to this article, only 8000 people ever received the Knight's Cross of the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern with Swords. Apparently, over 13,250,000 men served for the German Empire in WW1. That means he received an award that only 0.06% of men ever received. I believe that alone is notable enough for Wikipedia. Antny08 (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This source, Scherzer, Veit (2007). Die Ritterkreuzträger 1939–1945, might contain information on if he received the Oak Leaves or not. However, it is in German, and I am not sure where to get access to the book. Antny08 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with BeanieFan11 and, after reviewing the existing sources, I do believe there must be sources in German. While it isn't a BLP or promotional content, I don't see any harm in keeping it while someone gathers the references. - The9Man ^(Talk) 14:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources provided. NYC Guru (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – there's valid analysis of the sources above but I think the points raised that it does pass WP:NBIO. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Based on the discussions above, I believe additional sources exist. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Donkey Kong characters#King K. Rool. New sources have been brought up and I see a consensus among editors to Merge this article (I assume to the same target article as in the first AFD). To correct one participant here, a Merge is not a deletion, just the decision that content about this article subject should be consolidated on a different article page and that this page changed to a Redirect. After two AFDs over the past six weeks, I see no benefit to a Relisting so this is my discussion closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King K. Rool[edit]

King K. Rool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The first AfD was correctly closed as merge & redirect. Per a new information application at DRV, consensus was to allow a subsequent AfD to consider this potential new information. Please see the close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 19 for more details. This is a procedural nomination and I offer no opinion. Daniel (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ping participants from the original AfD, as per my DRV close: @Kung Fu Man, @Zxcvbnm, @Skynxnex, @Voorts, @Pokelego999 and closer @OwenX. Also pinging DRV applicant @Toadster101. This list of editors will receive a user talk page message to this effect also. Daniel (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Merge 2: Electric Boogaloo The new sources haven't modified my opinion. IMO this shouldn't have gone through deletion review, I agree with SportingFlyer that it seems incomprehensible why it got relisted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge once more. There is nothing here indicating the notability thresholds are met, and my previous argument at both the previous AfD and deletion reviews still stands. Consensus at the deletion review did not seem to indicate a relist, so this relist seems unnecessary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although the article itself is not in a great state (partly because of excessive linking to primary source videos of gameplay), the character of King K. Rool meets notability guidelines. There is coverage of the charcter in relatively conventional news media like Newsweek and Variety and in games journalism like Polygon. Outside of journalism, Todd Harper's "Fighting/Fat: Fighting Game Characters and the Emptiness of Video Game Fatness", Journal of Electronic Gaming and Esports 1, no. 1 (2023), DOI:10.1123/jege.2022-0043 interprets the King K. Rool character as part of an analysis of aesthetics of fatness in gaming; and Chris Scullion's Jumping for Joy: The History of Platform Video Games (Pen & Sword Books, 2022) covers the character's role in the Donkey Kong Country franchise. This is sufficient to keep. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The first source is dev info, which while great, is not helpful for notability unless his development is a major part of his notability. The Variety source doesn't really do anything. The Polygon source is alright. Certainly not the best article, but I guess it's something? I can't speak on the other three sources you cited since they haven't been linked nor do I have quotes. Would you be willing to cite the parts you believe contribute to notability? I believe that will help clarify a lot in terms of these sources' viability in establishing K. Rool's notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is development not part of the information about a fictional character? I think a good version of this article would include cited information about K. Rool's development.

  Sources not necessarily available online can also contribute to notability. Here is one excerpt from Harper's article:

  King K. Rool, gets a partial pass—an anthropomorphic crocodile is likely a little less subject to the body norms applied to fully human-appearing ones—but he still shares a similar body shape to other fat characters, including fellow Smash playable Wario: a wide, somewhat squat body. Notable in particular in K. Rool’s case is his golden breastplate, which specifically is molded to the shape of a pair of vaguely flabby pecs and a large, round belly with an outie belly button. (page 4)

  I'm afraid I don't have a personal copy of Jumping for Joy, but I was able to see on Google Books that the character is covered on pages 16–32. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment@User:Pokelego999 - The first source you asked about can be found here, and the book can be found here. Both are extremely trivial mentions of the character. The article barely mentions him specifically - that one quote above is essentially the bulk of the "coverage" on K. Rool in there. The book is simply a database of platform video games - K. Rool is simply mentioned in the very brief plot summaries for each of the DKC games he appears in. Just to give an example, the only coverage on page 32, mentioned above, is literally just the sentence "Donkey Kong's banana hoard has been stolen yet again, but this time it isn't King K. Rool and the Kremlings who are to blame". Rorshacma (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the link to "Fighting/Fat". The coverage is brief, but is it trivial? The analysis displayed is interpretive, and I think it's plainly more in-depth than the classic example of trivial coverage (In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice). There are Wikipedians who believe that one hundred words of coverage is sufficient to establish notability.

  As for Jumping for Joy, as I mentioned, I can keyword search the book on Google Books to see pages where the phrase "King K. Rool" appears, but I'm not able to read the pages themselves. I am left to trust your sense of it, if you are able to see more of the book. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dev info is important, but Reception should be prioritized. There's very few occasions where I've seen dev info heavily contribute to a character's notability beyond the basics, especially in the video game scene where there's a lot of cases of very little dev info existing.

  Looking at the bits shown, these seem very trivial, since they don't really discuss the character beyond recognizing their existence. I'm afraid these don't contribute to notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Stop fixating on development versus reception. It does not matter. What we need is significant coverage from reliable sources, whatever it may be. Reception sections are just one of many paths to proving notability. Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - for reasons noted by others in previous discussions. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for the exact same reasons it was deleted before. No efforts were made to improve this article for a subject previously determined by a community consensus to not be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. The said consensus still applies, and nothing has changed. With all due respect to the nominator, to call recreating a previously deleted weak article just to nominate it for deletion again "incomprehensible" would be an understatement. λ NegativeMP1 00:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Merge - The initial AFD was correctly closed as a merge, and the sources presented since the relisting are, quite simply, not good. The original consensus at the recent AFD should be restored. Rorshacma (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per my previous reasoning, examining the new sources as presented above:

• Jumping for Joy can be viewed here simply by scrolling through the pages rather than using the search function, and we can see...it's just a straight synopsis of the games.
• While the Newsweek article offers some information on dev, it's also extremely small and offers no real commentary beyond that. While I'm not opposed to citing smaller articles, this is realistically barely anything.
• "Fighting/Fat" is an article I've cited before for Rufus (Street Fighter), but runs into a problem of considering SIGCOV in this case: the times he's discussed, it's right alongside Wario in terms of shared body types and briefly at that, and only a small bit of commentary can be gleamed beyond that. One needs to consider what can actually be cited in instances such as this. That would probably be more useful for Tekken's Bob or Guilty Gear's Goldlewis for a better comparison as to what can be constituted as commentary within such an article for reception purposes.
• The Variety article isn't even...saying...anything? It's a rather strange article to say the least and would be questionable to cite for anything. A video existing and a website pointing out offers nothing. Commentary is more a factor, and trying to argue this counts as significant coverage makes me feel the "throw anything and hope it sticks" approach was the goal, which never works.
• Polygon's article also was a bit odd in that I was hoping somewhere there was character commentary or reaction, but instead it's straight gameplay reaction. Gameplay tends to be harder to cite, as it's extremely game specific, and often doesn't give a glimpse of how a character was received as a whole. Compare it to this article from Polygon on Gengar, which not only discusses gameplay but provides the author's own reaction to the new form and the character overall.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per my previous !vote and Kung Fu Man's analysis of the new sources that came out at DRV. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thank you for notifying me of the deletion nomination. I have significantly expanded the Reception section, primarily focusing on character commentary outside of gameplay from several new sources.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]} Some of the sources are more "reliable" than others, but there is significant evidence to conclude that King K. Rool meets the notability requirements. How many sources are necessary? toadster101 (talk/contributions) 04:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - The copious amount of low quality listicles and unreliable sources already present in the article throughout this and the previous AFD were not convincing before. Adding in more of the same is not really going to change much in that regard. Rorshacma (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I also completely agree listicles do not count for notability. SportingFlyer T·C 16:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to do an analysis real quick for those at this debate.

  1. "The final boss battles are all frankly bizarre but after you've beaten K. Rool around a little, dropped some lights on his head and watched him slip on a banana peel (obviously), you are then tasked with tickling the evil King's feet to defeat him." is practically all that can be considered, coverage, and it's just a recap of the method to defeat him. Nothing here strikes me as being notable, especially since this is part of a "Top 10" ranking
  2. K. Rool is mentioned about three times in this article, and none of them in a significant context beyond insinuating DKC as a whole may be taking inspiration from the Banana Wars.
  3. This is basically saying "He stole bananas and is evil." I guess it's citable? But it's incredibly weak and barely contributes anything to the article.
  4. Doesn't really have any commentary on the character beyond being a bit jokey in the fact that he frequently changes his aliases.
  5. Doesn't seem to be coverage, and per discussions about reliable sources, articles from TheGamer prior to 2020 are considered generally unreliable.
  6. This is talking about K. Rool's airship, not K. Rool.
  7. This is from The Onion, a satire news website. They don't do actual reporting beyond making satire of current events, and all of their articles are meant for comedy. It's an unreliable source per past consensus on the subject, as well.
  8. This Newsweek source has already been discussed, and is only developmental info. No commentary on the character.
  9. While a surprisingly interesting theory, this doesn't really contribute to notability. Nothing is said about K. Rool other than a hypothetical role in a hypothetical movie. This doesn't speak to anything about the character, and anything that may be said is inherently minor and tied to a hypothetical.
  10. This just says "K. Rool may be funny if he was in a movie," and that's it. It's basically the definition of a trivial mention.

  In short, none of these are good sources for proving notability, and do not contribute anything to the discussion beyond further establishing the lack of coverage on K. Rool. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is impossible to argue against these claims when the goalposts keep moving. Nothing in the notability guideline stipulates that the articles have to be written about the character specifically. Nothing in the notability guideline stipulates that "listicles" do not count for notability—especially if said lists are from reliable sources and feature commentary. How is a description of the character's personality traits not "commentary?" How much commentary is needed for a character to be considered notable? How many sources? For example, you dismissed the Arcade Sushi article for not having commentary on the character "beyond being a bit jokey," as if K. Rool's comedic personality and "identity confusion" don't meet the threshold for commentary based on undisclosed, subjective criteria. No additional research is needed to extract the content in any of these articles, aside from perhaps the one from The Onion. I am well-aware that The Onion is a satirical news website; the only reason I cited it was due to its popularity—and thus giving exposure to a purportedly "non-notable" character—though in retrospect I shouldn't have included it as I was unaware of the past consensus. Toadster101 (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Toadster101 The goalposts aren't "being moved", the problem is the sources are weak, you need actual discussion in the sources, something indicating thoughts were presented on how they reacted to the character preferably as a fictional character. What you have here are a bunch of small one off comments, sometimes not even *about* the character, that don't even make full statements. This is the sort of material that characters like those in the Dead or Alive series tried to fall back on (SOOO many sources focused on a passing mention about their breasts...) or even many Pokemon back in the day. Instead of reacting with confusion why other articles are here but K. Rool is getting bashed, look at the discussions going on in the reception section of those other articles. But this "anything goes!" approach where you're citing stuff like Cracked.com...that's not it chief.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Basically my thoughts above. I'm perfectly okay with using listicles and articles not inherently focused on a character for Reception, and I've done so before, but the sources provided are all very trivial, maybe one sentence of actual coverage in most of these. There needs to be significant discussion of the character for an article to be justified, and really only maybe the Polygon source right now can be considered SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Goalposts are indeed moving, or rather, the threshold for what qualifies as a "strong" source. I keep hearing that the sources are trivial and don't go into enough depth, but again, where is this requirement stipulated in the notability guideline? What qualifies as "depth," in this case? Many reliable sources have been cited copiously throughout the article—including Den of Geek, Game Revolution, GameSpot, GamesRadar, IGN, New York Magazine, Newsweek, Nintendo Life, Paste Magazine, Polygon, and Variety. The ones that aren't "reliable," as per Wikipedia, are merely supplementary. I have included an additional citation from Game Revolution, which does, in fact, pertain to K. Rool specifically and cover the character—and the fandom surrounding him—in greater detail. While each article should be evaluated separately, it's worth mentioning that the "Reception" section—which seems to be the only section that's relevant here, as the reliable sources that discuss K. Rool's development history have been dismissed—for Donkey Kong himself is mostly "listicles" and has less commentary of the character's personality traits than K. Rool's does. Would you make the argument, then, that Donkey Kong is not notable? Or would you contend that notability can be achieved without needing an arbitrary number of thinkpieces from gaming journalism websites, which K. Rool has anyway?

  I recognize the stringency of Wikipedia's citation policies, but to say that K. Rool doesn't meet the notability requirements in light of the new evidence that has been posted is, frankly, absurd. Attempts have been made—and are ongoing—to improve the article to meet the impossibly high standards that the character is now being held to nearly six years later. As the notability guideline specifies, notability is not temporary. Toadster101 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't the sites themselves that are weak. The sites themselves are strong, but the coverage they're providing just isn't enough to be considered a "strong" source. Anyways I will state that the GameRevolution source is a decent one, but it's not enough to salvage the whole thing given the overall lack of significant articles like it.

  As for DK, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. An article being in bad shape does not have anything to do with the state of K. Rool's article. DK needs improvement, but that's a separate discussion, not something to be talked about at another character's AfD. I would argue, personally, that he likely is notable, but the DK article would need source searches and improvements before any AfD could be made.

  In any case, these standards are not "impossibly high" since many, and I mean many characters, have met these kinds of thresholds, and on far less sources than K. Rool. See Bobby, for example, who was a recent keep at AfD. He only has nine sources but safely meets thresholds since almost every article covering him actually gives deep commentary and analysis on the character. There's a weak source or two in there, but there's enough in-depth sources to guarantee notability. K. Rool, on the other hand, is primarily weak sources with a rare in-depth source in the mix. Just because there's a quantity of trivial mentions does not mean a character means GNG, they need some actual, significant discussion. Notability isn't temporary, but notability guidelines need to be met for that argument to be valid, first. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. All of the additional sources that were added were unreliable like The Onion, meanwhile GameRant's listicle sources don't help WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 05:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Expanding on Greenish Pickle's comment, while I don't hold a negative view on Valnet sources the ones used are not really saying anything, and the others added i.e. WhatCulture, ComingSoon.net are unreliable sources. In addition, the AfD is currently being canvassed on twitter by a user I suspect is Toadster101 (no bad faith, just it's been twice now with the same timing, once here and once in the AfD review).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The linked post has been deleted by the original post author, but it was the same Twitter account used in the DRV for canvassing purposes. I won't speak more given I can't speak more for their reasons, but this should likely be kept in mind by the closer. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep overall. More than sufficient sourcing. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What sources would you consider to be strong? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per the arguments at the DRV and at the last AfD. I stand by my previous comments that this AfD is superfluous. SportingFlyer T·C 16:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Citations used in the article's most recent version before deletion, as well as its subsequent updates, include sufficient analysis and/or discussion of King K. Rool and his reception, outside of the context of his games of origin, to qualify the character a standalone page. While some citations link to less traditionally "mainstream" sources, compared to what might be referenced for fictional characters from other mediums, the sources are of sufficient prominence with relation to the gaming medium, while also being of sufficient quality, to meet significance requirements. Above "merge" suggestions do not meaningfully specify criteria precluding the sources in question from being of a sufficient quality to count as significant. The previous deletion discussion notes that the King K. Rool article previously had been deemed in compliance with notability standards. A partial factor in the page's nomination for deletion, that King K. Rool "is not on the same level as Bowser," appears nowhere within said notability standards. IFoundALemonTree (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC) — IFoundALemonTree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  What sources would you consider significant then? Nothing in here is really all that strong, and any sources brought up during this debate have been debunked rather quickly. The comment Zx made about Bowser also seemed to be more of a personal comment than him citing policy, and it did not seem to be his main reasoning for deletion, either.

  Also, to closer, this account was non-existent prior to today, and their only contribution has thus far been to this AfD. As a result, they are likely to be a result of canvassing per the Twitter advertising. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to respond here as my words are being mischaracterized. I said that K. Rool doesn't seem to have notability, which indicates he is not akin to a Bowser-like character. I am obviously not so inexperienced to assume popularity is the indicator of an article's notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I find the reopening of this AfD confusing, especially in light of the fact that there was brigading involved. Furthermore, the reasons to reopen the AfD were deeply unconvincing, including no evidence whatsoever that the result of the AfD was in any way, shape, or form faulty. The editors pushing for it to be reopened should have made their argument to unmerge it on the talk page, and I'm uncertain what the argument was that suggested the AfD result was not proper. As far as the argument made for "keep," it remains unconvincing, except for the Polygon source. I feel like there is a misunderstanding, too, of what sources are usable, when The Onion is being cited as a usable source. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. This discussion was re-opened to evaluate new sources. Echoing the fictional character regulars above, none of those sources are strong enough to justify a standalone article, not going into epiphanic depth on the character himself. It should stay merged. czar 22:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - the sourcing is still rather weak. Most either come from unreliable/low grade sources, and/or say little of substance. I think it's best to be covered in the respective Donkey Kong articles. Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aliyaa[edit]

Aliyaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. UtherSRG (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Malaysia. UtherSRG (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The references in the article seem adequate to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as references in article seem to all be listicles and/or reviews and therefore do not meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep the reference in the article are not paid reviews and speak about both the history of the location as a prominent Sri Lankan restaurant and provide non bias statements on the location. The article should be kept. Jana1989sl (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jana1989sl: Please list on the talk page the WP:THREE WP:SIRS you believe demonstrate notability per WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources are routine local coverage or lack depth, fails NCORP. Reywas92^Talk 14:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator Mevoelo (talk) 20:15, 6 March 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 23:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fusebox (programming)[edit]

Fusebox (programming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A dead project page and a repo that hasn't been updated in a decade. MNewnham (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources or reviews or anything at all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:29, 5 March 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. Consensus here is that sources are sufficient to demonstrate GNG. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brittani Nichols[edit]

Brittani Nichols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of notability — in this case, lack of produced work of their own, seems like the person was only limited participant in smaller projects and no outside work of their own credit (that I could find). Article mainly cites primary sources and the living person’s own social media.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 305Askins (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Television, Sexuality and gender, California, Connecticut, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per past examples of marginal notability of film directors. Usually the film(s) are merged into the director's article, which is what I recommend in this place. If you need actual precedents, I can provide them, but long story short, there is usually not enough coverage of either director and film(s), but there is enough for both when considered in totality. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, what is the Merge target article you are proposing? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, what Merge target article is being proposed here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Suicide Kale (which I think is what the above person meant to propose?) PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be appropriate. Bearian (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject looks notable to me. Based on my own search and research, she has an ample amount of coverage, which to a large extent establishes notability. Mevoelo (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject easily meets GNG and has significant coverage in multiple media sources. For example, CNN, Variety, Huffington Post, The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, Entertainment Weekly, among others. The subject has also won an NAACP award and was nominated for a major emmy (now added to article) Affied (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC) 20:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The above sources show WP:GNG. Variety is brief but qualifying coverage. The HuffPo article is an interview, but there is journalistic coverage at the top; the Tribune coverage is the same. The NYT is a full feature. The other two are not qualifying sources. -- asilvering (talk) 20:10, 12 March 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elvira Vikhareva[edit]

Elvira Vikhareva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Too small and insignificant Russian politician. Significance according to WP:POLITICS is not observed.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Russia. Shaws username . talk . 15:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Somewhat flowery language in the article. There's some coverage of this individual in RS. This is a mention [4], this [5], [6]. This in French [7], and in Le Monde [8], and this [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify while AfD is not clean-up, the article as it now stands needs to be "wikified' to work so that the sources, which seem to Wikipedia:NEXIST to potentially satisfy GNG, are used to demonstrate that.Djflem (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated lies for the purpose of harming and destroying important historical records. The activities of this politician and the importance of this article are supported by many references to publications in leading media. Dina about (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Individual seems notable but article is not appropriate for mainspace in current state. AusLondonder (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - again, AfD is not for cleanup, and it's not awful. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - this is a WP:BLP, and according to the Telegraph in March 2023, Vikhareva was "largely unknown in Russia" (but see the Nov 2022 Le Monde source focused on Vikhareva). Draftifying could also help develop neutral and balanced content that is not WP:PROMOTION, with independent and reliable secondary sources. Vikhareva has continued to be quoted in news sources, e.g. NYT in May 2023, Politico in June 2023, so further development seems possible, but core content policies seem to favor removing this article from mainspace for now. Beccaynr (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable per Le Monde source, Meduza article, and various Russian sources. I've attempted a first pass at cleaning the article up, will try to work on it some more later today or tomorrow. I think at this point it isn't TNT worthy, if not particularly great. Rusalkii (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between those editors arguing to Keep and those advocating Draftification. No additional support for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok if we send it to draft, nothing wrong with a rewrite to help make it better. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, with thanks to Rusalkii for the cleanup. -- asilvering (talk) 20:12, 12 March 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 Egyptian Armaments Authority. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Forces Arming Authority (Egypt)[edit]

Armed Forces Arming Authority (Egypt) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

There's a better article of this: Egyptian Armaments Authority. 18Carlox32 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Egypt. Shaws username . talk . 15:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nominator blanked this article and replaced it with a link to Egyptian Armaments Authority, which the nominator had created immediately beforehand--I have restored the deletions. --Finngall ^talk 18:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Egyptian Armaments Authority, as the arabic name mentioned is the direct translation of the topic. While the topic has multiple GNG sources, it is better to be covered in that article. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 18:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Polomský[edit]

Pavel Polomský (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Despite having finished top 10 in 1994 (seventh place), bobsleigh athlete Pavel Polomský has not received enough criteria that meet WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. The only source I can find regarding this person is Radio Prague International, but it does not report any individual activity on his own. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is also a stub. Given Polomský's current age, we can assume his bobsleigh career is over. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some sources. He is among the best Czech bobsledders in history. Btw it is irrelevant if his career is over or not, we don't delete athletes' articles after their careers are over. FromCzech (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per FromCzech. Seems to fall down on the right side of the notability/being referenced fence. Geschichte (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:44, 5 March 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 Parishes and dependencies of Antigua and Barbuda. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of capitals in Antigua and Barbuda[edit]

List of capitals in Antigua and Barbuda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No reason to have a separate list from Parishes and dependencies of Antigua and Barbuda, where these seven are listed as well. These "capitals", apart from the real capital Saint John, are very small villages and don't seem to get special attention as a group apart from their role in the parishes, which is treated at the other article. I redirected it but was reverted. The minimal extra information here can easily be merged into the other article if necessary and sourced, and if the sources then work (many of the ethnicity pdfs don't load in either the original or the archived form, and I don't see where e.g. the "foreign born" percentages come from, the census document only gives these figures per parish) Fram (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Antigua and Barbuda. Fram (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Parishes and dependencies of Antigua and Barbuda with the history intact so that sourced information can be merged if desired. There is no need to cover these details in two articles rather than one. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I fail to see how this situation is different from any other list of capitals of country subdivisions. CROIX^talk 13:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have spoken to the Statistics Division to fix the demographics links. All the other sources appear to be intact and prove that these are in fact parish capitals. CROIX^talk 13:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect - seems to pass NLIST, but my preference would be to keep. The foreign born issue can be solved through editing. SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does it add that can't be (or isn't already) covered in the proposed target article? Duplicating information just because NLIST doesn't specifically disallow it (and NLIST doesn't disallow anything it seems) seems like a bad idea. Fram (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Then there should have been a merge discussion. There's no information in this article that needs to be deleted apart from maybe the foreign born percentages. But I don't think it's as duplicative as you're arguing. SportingFlyer T·C 23:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge The main article already lists all the capitals, and the population could be added there. Reywas92^Talk 14:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 5 March 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. Closing as no consensus after multiple relists. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Zaabal Engineering Industries[edit]

Abu Zaabal Engineering Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability. Additional sources I found like Reuters are not reliable enough to change the situation. BoraVoro (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issues with the article. 18Carlox32 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Arabic sources cited in the article look pretty good to me. The best English language sources I could find seem to be | an FAS fact sheet, | Global Security fact sheet, and | a Carnegie Middle East Center report on Egypt's military industrial complex which has paragraphs about this factory on pages 55 and 212. There are also plenty of mentions in routine and not fully independent coverage which don't help much for notability but can be used to source facts in the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  those English sources are not good - as I mentioned, passing mentions. BoraVoro (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I concur with the above Keep vote. The Arabic sources when used with Google Translate display articles that have a lot of info about the subject.Maxcreator (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 27 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. The sources mentioned above do not meet the criteria as already been pointed out. Eluchil404 pretty much admits the sources are "fully independent" and "don't help much for notability". The arabic sources in the article are no better; one is a page displaying the logos of 23 companies with no in-depth information, another relies entirely on info provided by the company and the chairman, another is PR relating to a visit by a government minister, another reports on a meeting where the company attended for continued/increased government support. None of those sources meet the criteria and I am unable to locate any that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My position is that the FAS, GS, and Carnegie Middle East Center sources I listed above are independent and substantial. The FAS and GS sources are basically copies of each other, but they are clearly independent of the company/the Egyptian government. They are fairly short. The CMEC source is again fully independent and has at least two paragraphs of coverage which I would condider substantial in this context, but others might not. My comments about sources lacking independence or significant coverage referred to other sources I found but did not list. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response The fact that the GAS and GS website pages are *identical* proves that at least one is not independent content. Can't be independent if its a copy. The FAS info is from 1999 and predates GS by 12 years so my guess is GS is the copy. The GS info is a total of 5 sentences. Inadequate to meet WP:NCORP criteria. The last reference only appears to mention the topic company once, in passing, also not NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:08, 5 March 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. I'll just add that the term "British Rabbit Council" did give me a smile with an image of British rabbits gathering to discuss out business of the day like expectations for this year's carrot crop. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rabbit Council[edit]

British Rabbit Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There has been a tag about notability since 2018, I've read it through it and I'm leaning towards delete but not entirely sure. Searching for the organisation itself brings up little reliable sources - one of the first results is a forum asking what it is. When I searched via the news section all I got were articles in Britain about rabbits with them being cited. I'm unsure whether this establishes notability, it shows that in this context reliable sources consider it a reliable source/notable source to ask for comment, however these are basically trivial mentions, they aren't in depth. Sources that may establish notability are: ^[1][2][3][4] Finally if the BRC isn't notable enough for an article can it be considered notable enough to establish breed notability? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article is important enough to keep alive. The BRC is, after all, the pre-eminent organization in the UK for owners of pedigreed rabbits, and rabbits are a quite popular pet in the UK (more so than in the USA, I think). The BBC invariably mentions the BRC in any story involving rabbits, and there should be enough information in those pieces to sufficiently expand this article. Oliver Phile (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - on the nom's final question: no, of course there is no connection between a body's real-world importance and its Wikipedian "notability". The BRC maintains the rabbit Breeds Standards Book, which is the authoritative source on rabbit breeds recognised in the UK, and that will remain an authoritative source entirely independently of whether or not the BRC has a Wikipedia article. Ingratis (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep after User:Tacyarg's edits. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - (after reflection) - the article is weak and does the organisation no favours, and sources are admittedly thin on the ground, but there are more than have so far appeared. So major improvement is necessary. Nevertheless, the BRC is the close equivalent of the American Rabbit Breeders Association, which has a much stronger article based on similar sourcing. As above, it has a significant function (in the world of rabbit breeding) as the acknowledged authority since 1934 on official rabbit breeds accepted in the UK, which despite an overlap are not identical with the accepted US or European breeds, and publishes the authoritative Breeds Standards Book as well as other standard publications. Ingratis (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative or weak keep per WP:HEY If and only if the sources found are added to the article. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have added contents and refs to the article. I think it meets WP:GNG based on coverage. The organisation has been involved in national events - promoting the rabbit as food during the depression and the Second World War, and supplying expertise and activism during myxomatosis. I think there is also likely to be further coverage of its predecessor organisations, and would expect offline coverage of the BRC in memoirs, studies of hobbies, and in histories of the Home Front. Tacyarg (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coterie Insurance[edit]

Coterie Insurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

None of the sources are sufficient for notability per WP:NCORP. Three are trade publications and one is a database, and they are either routine coverage or entirely based on information provided by the founders (failing WP:ORGIND). I couldn't find any usable sources after a quick search. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure whether this falls under G11. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A search found no independent, significant coverage, mostly funding and partnership announcements. The insurtechinsights source is the most in-depth coverage, but as an interview it is not an independent source, and contains precious little but quotes from the CEO. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A disclosed-paid article about a recent start-up finance firm. Leaving aside routine funding and partnership announcement coverage and a vendor case study, which fail WP:ORGTRIV, there is a FinTech Breakthrough award and inclusion in a Fintech 100 list [10], neither inherently notable. Clearly a firm going about its business, but I don't see enough to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aliza Landes[edit]

Aliza Landes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Of the listed reliable sources, the most she gets is three paragraphs in the Tablet Magazine one. The i24 video source has her answering two questions, partially but not wholly about a project she was involved in. The Atlantic is a single sentence plus a paragraph quoted from Tablet (and thus adds nothing for notability per WP:NBASIC.) Forum (which may or may not be a reliable source) has one paragraph plus on sentence on her. Sources regarding the Wall Street Journal article mention her in passing (or, in one used the article author re-added, is on screen for a fraction of a second while showing an image of one of the other sources.) Coverage of the WSJ article here is problematic, as our article's subject had no known involvement in the WSJ article -- the link is that she is pals with a co-author of said article, with no involvement by her in the article having been shown. (Creator of this article has been highly focused on that WSJ article, as can be seen by their work on UNRWA October 7 controversy, their creation of a now-deleted attack page on the co-author of the article and of a scheduled-to-be-deleted category about the co-author.) Further sources listed are not independent. I'm not finding anything better through Google including Google News. Newspapers.com search brings up three paragraphs (one about her, two quotes) in a 37-paragraph story on the IDF's social media in the St. Louis Jewish Light and her being quoted as part of 2 paragraphs from a much larger Boston Globe story about a Jewish school she was attending when she was 14 (and I have not sought to verify that the Globe quote is not from a different person of similar name, because it's inconsequential in any case.) Nat Gertler (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization of the Carrie Keller-Lynn as an "attack page" is disparagement for which I ask you to apologize. I was writing about a major controversy in journalism, where front-page articles in US newspapers of record appear to be nearly lifted from the Israeli State and where new journalists with close connections to the Israeli State suddently appear as authors. I did not create the controversy, I only documented it. You have in the past accused me of WP:SYNTH; I did not say that Keller-Lynn and Landes' relationship is indicative of any bias in the WSJ article, but rather I documented the significant coverage of that issue being raised, among others, at the heart of the controversy about the article.

Secondly, you accusation that I am "highly focused" on the UNRWA October 7 controversy article...which may or may not be coded disparagement, implying that I am obsessed. Yes, I have made many edits, and frankly gone in circles are because of non-stop removals by you and another editor who appear to have a political agenda to remove any content which might cast a light on the influence of the Israeli State in the US press, however I do not accuse you of that as I don't know exactly what your motivation is. The reasons given are usually pedantic. I spend literally hours and hours, gathering the exact quotations and permutations of RS to support points that were clearly supported already by other RS and WP:COMMONSENSE. I have done so despite many of the reasons given not even being WP policy. I guess I did a good enough job finding the exact right references that now you are submitting the article for deletion.

Why not lay off the disparagement and simply ask people to decide whether the subject of the article is notable or not?

Be aware I will not back down and refrain from adding well-supported, balanced and truthful material about Israel/Palestine simply because of non-stop attempts to delete information that doesn't happen to reflect positively on the Israeli State.Keizers (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Positive or not, this person hardly has anything covering her, and I'm unsure what the claim to notability is. Running a social medial presence is rather routine these days. Even in 2009 it was somewhat routine. Oaktree b (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Cryptocurrency, Military, Advertising, Israel, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Atlantic article is fine (rather briefly mentions her), not strictly about this individual. Rest are non-RS or not even about this person. Founding a social media policy is fine, it's nothing notable. I don't see any additional coverage about this person. Delete for unclear notability and no sourcing regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, including per WP:NOT and WP:BLP policy, e.g. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives This article includes a substantial "UNRWA/Wall Street Journal controversy" section with what seems to be an WP:UNDUE focus on a report of a screenshot of a negative tweet about the subject that is extensively quoted in the article, and another quote of reported sensationalism about the subject, and a summary of a report about more tweet comments. While some of this can be fixed by editing, the minimal sourcing available to support notability as well as a neutral and balanced article according to WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP policies support deletion at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I made a substantial edit to the article to remove content based on policy concerns raised in my comment above; this is the version of the article I was referring to when commenting. Beccaynr (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A biography that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO when the biographical elements that can be reasonably encyclopedically treated are considered; the subject's name is mentioned in relation with some noteworthy events but this doesn't translate into notability of the subject.—Alalch E. 00:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Brodie[edit]

Sam Brodie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very simply does not hit either requirement of WP:NACTOR BrigadierG (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Indonesia. BrigadierG (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Some coverage of the individual, but I'm not certain which are RS... This [11] talks about the person, but most coverage is celebrity fluff articles. I don't see enough to build an article. The Indonesian language wiki article has the same few sources as this EN version does. Oaktree b (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete outside of the one reality show, they have had no coverage; we generally delete contestants on reality TV shows except for win, place, and show. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 8 March 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. The consensus here is to Delete this article but any editor is free to create a Redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Stuckenberg 2024 presidential campaign[edit]

David Stuckenberg 2024 presidential campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Stuckenberg, nor his campaign, have substantial media coverage from reliable and notable sources. He has been polling constantly below 10 individual votes and creating an article for his campagin opens a can of worms of making an article for every minor presidential candidate polling in the dozens Scu ba (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, United States of America, Florida, Massachusetts, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2024 Republican Party presidential candidates#Other candidates per ATD. Nate • (chatter) 21:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Stuckenberg is on many state ballots and has made an effort to campaign. In Missouri for example, the ballot only had Stuckenberg, Trump, and Haley. In North Dakota, he came in third place behind Trump and Haley (ahead of Binkley, who himself does have an article). There has been some media coverage - light, but he's not a minor nobody that just filed to be on a ballot. GeorgeMisty (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: coming in third on a ballot and getting 24 votes on one ballot are not wikipedia-worthy. We don't have extensive coverage to get this over the notability bar. Oaktree b (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Expoe34 (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater|(tαlk) 18:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Minor nobody that just filed to be on the ballot. Reywas92^Talk 16:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable campaign. SportingFlyer T·C 10:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. and others. Sal2100 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I would vote to redirect but I'm not sure how useful that would be to readers. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like David Stuckenberg made an account to comment on this AfD. Of course I could be wrong and it might be a fan or something. Either way, bias seems to be there. And votes to merge seem rather strange to me, as I don't know what additional content they would want at the proposed target that isn't already there. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WTAF. If an article about the person isn't notable, their campaign surely won't be unless WP:1EVENT applies. – The Grid (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Stuckenberg is the last remaining non-withdrawn candidate on the ballot besides Trump. See [[12]]. Him and Trump are the last 2 standing! DStuckenberg2024 (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— DStuckenberg2024 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Merely standing as a candidate doesn't give notability per WP:NPOL, nothing to show that there is enough coverage of this campaign to make it notable. Shaws username . talk . 18:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2024 Republican Party presidential candidates. He is on the ballot in a bunch of states so it’s worth mentioning that there are non-withdrawn candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B063:AC82:FD4E:C094:689D:E954 (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - my most serious concern is one of WP:COI - either the subject, or a member of his campaign, created and/or edited this page. I join with the others concerned about lack of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More American election season cruft. Receiving 25 votes out of 324,575 cast in New Hampshire. Less votes that people writing in ceasefire. Nearly 20 times more people wrote in Joe Biden in the Republican primary in New Hampshire than voted for this guy. Someone thought this deserved an article? Where's the significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources? AusLondonder (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the 2024 Republican Party presidential candidates page. His formal registration, appearance on several state ballots, and votes received (while miniscule) are enough for a placement on that page. There is definitely not enough coverage for a separate page.Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Wengler[edit]

Lisa Wengler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers as the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I found nothing more than trivial mentions like (this and this. JTtheOG (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Luxembourg. JTtheOG (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InnoTech College[edit]

InnoTech College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very small institution with around 12 staff across both campuses. Couldn't find anything of note online - either about past achievement or current activity. Newhaven lad (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. The Google news hits, 2 of them are 1 line mentions. LibStar (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Witry[edit]

Sarah Witry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers as the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I found nothing more than trivial mentions like this. JTtheOG (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Luxembourg. JTtheOG (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - seems to fall way short of GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aigerim Alimkulova[edit]

Aigerim Alimkulova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Kazakhstani women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing approaching WP:SIGCOV that I found were interviews such as 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kazakhstan. JTtheOG (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:25, 8 March 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 Bhagalpur district. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bal Bharti Vidyalaya[edit]

Bal Bharti Vidyalaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A run-of-a-mill school with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. While there are some passing mentions, there's nothing substantial to establish its notability. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 17:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Bihar. GSS ^💬 17:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bhagalpur district. The sources show that the school exists, but aren't enough to meet WP:NSCHOOL. An independent search wasn't able to surface any such sources too. Redirecting to the district article is a good ARF. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  https://saras.cbse.gov.in/SARAS/AffiliatedList/AfflicationDetails/330552%20

  refer to this source 6 official reliable source of cbse affiliation. The school has been given a affliation code too.Better not to delete or move the pg. Dhartiputrah (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per MPGuy. Lorstaking (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bhagalpur district.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attah Issah[edit]

Attah Issah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As-yet unelected candidate for political office, fails WP:NPOL. Sourcing relates solely to candidacy. AusLondonder (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ghana. AusLondonder (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete probably WP:TOOSOON. We can always restore it if/when WP:NPOL gets passed. SportingFlyer T·C 10:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. He seems to have a decent amount of coverage but the vast majority is related to candidacy. I agree it may be WP:TOOSOON. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – fails notability guidelines about a candidate that isn't in office yet. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 18:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can not find anything that indicates notability --Devokewater|(tαlk) 18:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarsagun Patrika[edit]

Sarsagun Patrika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication this newspaper meets either WP:GNG or WP:NPERIODICAL. GSS ^💬 17:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. GSS ^💬 17:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, tried a WP:BEFORE search yesterday in English and Bengali, and couldn't find any mention of it in reliable sources. The Rising Voices reference was one of several I removed yesterday that don't mention the subject; most of the original article was copied nearly verbatim (and without attribution) from Fagun, an article about an unrelated Santali-language paper. It seems unlikely to me that the news portal linked has any relation to the print newspaper mentioned in the Pothi.com reference: it appears to be simply yet another Bengali-language churnalism portal, which doesn't mention, let alone suggest subscribing to, the printed paper that this article is ostensibly about. Wikishovel (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sarsagun Patrika is a popular newspaper of a Santali community in West Bengal. Everyone knows what Sarsagun magazine is? It is not so popular in all of India, but recently it is popular in West Bengal. I think this is a bit of a magazine, so Eligible I think. Faltu Katha (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

opposed undelete this article because this newspaper is best work for Santali Community. How to development their community cover this topic and conscious to Santal People's. Faltu Katha (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the deletion template from the article, that's disruptive editing and can lead to a block here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: AfD template has been removed twice now (I just reverted it) Please stop removing it. I don't see coverage at all for this publication, the source given seems to be all there is. Not meeting notability guidelines here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  opposed Faltu Katha (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you provide some evidence of extensive coverage in reliable sources? Simply opposing the vote doesn't advance the discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  'Keep Sarsagun Patrika is Santali newspaper in West Bengal. It is ingenious tribe media portal. Faltu Katha (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Faltu Katha (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

• Speedy delete: i searched a lot found nothing, even one article about this newspaper. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's the one reference already cited from pothi.com, but it's still unclear what that newspaper has to do with the Bengali language website. For anyone hunting for references, the website transliterates it as Sar Sagun Patrika, but their Facebook uses Sarsagun Patrika. Wikishovel (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is notably I found in wrs Wikilovery (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)— Wikilovery (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment article creator User:Faltu Katha (see ballot stuffing and sockpuppetry above) has been indefinitely blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Wikishovel (talk) 15:36, 12 March 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 Dratify‎. A note to the article creator: If you bypass AFC and move this back to main space with clean-up and approval, I predict it will not be draftified again, it will simply be deleted. This is your second chance, don't be in a hurry or it's likely this article won't ever be part of the main space encyclopedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Church, Bangalore[edit]

Sacred Heart Church, Bangalore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

no independent coverage in a BEFORE, all existing sources are passing mentions in primary and tertiary refs. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy ping @The Herald, User4edits, and TheBritinator: who all left comments on the draft article that existed in the mainspace prior to the AfC cleanup. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I see that the user @Ashokpillai34 has moved the article into mainspace bypassing AfC submission. Therefore DRAFTIFY with appropriate information to the user. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: (Responding to the courtesy ping as the last AfC reviewer who declined the draft) The article is still in no way for mainspace. Since the last decline, it hasn't improved per se. Still need extensive cleanup, and more independent reliable sources for verifiability and GNG. Also, I'd like to urge the editor to submit it via AfC and not to bypass the procedure. Yes, we have a backlog of 7 weeks, but if your article is upto the mark, it will be published nevertheless. A few weeks is not going to change anything. Bypassing the AfC is not acceptable and is totally unfair to other drafts that are awaiting review. Also, it is under disruptive editing. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I have already draftified this article once, and the author has taken it upon themselves to ram it through to mainspace once again. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 21:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The said user had previously done the same on 12 February 2024. User4edits (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think if this keeps going on, a block is in order. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 15:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As the nom, for the sake of consensus, I would also support draftify. If moved back to the draftspace, the previous comments and declination reasons should be added back in. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Though I do not believe it is notable at the moment and any existing article could reach that threshold at this time. If it were to be draftified, it should require approval from an AfC reviewer and not be allowed to be moved back to mainspace, given the article history raised by other commentors here. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Karnataka. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete it guys. please approve it Ashokpillai34 (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

respectfully, with every AfC submission (10!) and multiple attempts at ramming to mainspace you are straying closer and closer to WP:CIR territory. I strongly suggest you take a read at the rejection rationale and the guidelines surrounding them. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 15:27, 7 March 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 Czechoslovakia at the 1976 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jiří Paulát[edit]

Jiří Paulát (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG; this person never received medal record or finished top 10 tournament rankings (ranked 17th place according to Sports Reference). Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is an unsourced stub. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1976 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. FromCzech (talk) 08:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Paywalled newspaper archive Arcanum seems to have a number of results which appear to be on him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nenea hartia: I remember you had access to Arcanum: can you tell if there is any significant coverage of Paulat there? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: Yes, there are over 30 brief mentions of Paulát - if not more - in various Czechoslovak newspapers (see some examples here). From what I could see, he is mentioned as part of the bobsled teams that competed in various tournaments, but I can't find any articles dedicated to him. --Nenea hartia (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for looking. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:17, 11 March 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. which is partly influenced by the inaccurate deletion rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev Connolly[edit]

Kiev Connolly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

tried to find some sources for this subject, but nothing apart from database entries and some small mentions in some film contests. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Subject appears (just about) to meet WP:MUSICBIO criteria 2 ("has had a single or album on any country's national music chart"). While there are only a few sources, relative to WP:NBASIC, there are some which (just about) meet criteria 1 ("multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"). I would note that, apart from the sources linking the subject to The Wolfe Tones, most of the sources relate to the subject's representation of Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1989. Which is already covered in a separate article. So, if there is consensus that the subject's notability is inherently tied to that event (WP:BIO1E), then a redirect to the related title would seem an appropriate WP:ATD. Personally, based on the sources identified and added in my own WP:BEFORE and notwithstanding the (surmountable/addressed) COI/PROMO issues, I cannot support outright deletion. (FYI - The Eurovision is a song contest. Not a "film contest".) Guliolopez (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::* Keep, seems a reasonable navigational list to me, and it's not over-annotated. A lot of readers are unaware of categories or find the category system hard to use, so navigational lists like this have a place. Elemimele (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Elemimele, are you happy that your contribution above has been associated with the correct AfD discussion? (I ask as the title under discussion isn't a "navigational list". Or otherwise a replacement/supplement to the category system. And so the "keep" rationale/reasons that you mention don't seem to fully align with the title covered by this specific discussion....) Guliolopez (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez: Strewth, no idea what happened there. Brain-fart moment? No, you're quite right, that's not the subject to which I thought I was replying. Struck! Elemimele (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - satisfies WP:MUSICBIO, and representing Ireland in the Eurovision is notable in itself. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:29, 7 March 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 Pud Brown. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

West Craft Records[edit]

West Craft Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

(proceduarlly declined PROD) Label so obscure its Discogs page has two attributed releases. I strongly disagree with the previous de-prod rationale that offline sources may exist; nothing indicating that popped up on newspapers.com or the Google news archive. Moreover, many, many short-lived jazz labels came up in the late 40s and early 50s, too many for the music press to cover all of them, and the ability for one of them to sign one or two notable musicians for possibly less than a year does not indicate that coverage is likely to exist. Mach61 (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and California. Mach61 (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pud Brown, I'm guessing these are self-released by him. Probably covered by jazzfan magazines of the time, but I doubt coverage would be of the label, it would be of the releases, which really isn't independent of the artist. If sources for these releases can be found they can be added to the artist's article, and should coverage of the label somehow be found there's nothing lost (that would have to be re-built) by redirecting except "sky is blue" prose. I'm normally loathe to have coverage of 78rpm labels removed, because truly most of the available coverage has not been digitized, but the nom has it right on this one. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No new comments after two relistings so a third makes no sense. Editors interested in turning this article into a Redirect can bring up that possibility on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Center Place Restoration School[edit]

Center Place Restoration School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Zero evidence this meets the notability requirements established at WP:ORGCRIT namely having achieved "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Missouri. AusLondonder (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Independence, Missouri#Education. I couldn't find any independent reputable sources for it and all I could find were generic school review sites, not enough to help it meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Shaws username . talk . 12:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Found newspaper articles discussing the school from the Kansas City Star. I used Newspapers.com to find the relevant articles. There was a school merger, so the article may also cover the Oak Valley Country Day School. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Latter Day Saints. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:01, 5 March 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. leaning Keep with improvements to the article being made. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Adnan Kakakhail[edit]

Syed Adnan Kakakhail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails to meet basic WP:GNG.. Most of the references cited are either unreliable or provide no significant coverage about the subject - merely namechecks. Saqib (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Islam, and Pakistan. CptViraj (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. 41.99.221.13 (talk) 20:41, 24 February 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 11:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This person is the recipient of a presidential award, which is sufficient for notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 14:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG as per reference links.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Three is a multiple, and I see there is good coverage about the subject here (this reference existed in the article), here, and this piece in Dawn, which I have just included. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Meanwhile, this research paper also gives more than a paragraph to Kakakhail. ─ Aafī (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  and over two pages (57-59) in What is a Madrasa? by Ebrahim Moosa, makes this now very clear that WP:GNG is met. ─ Aafī (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notability is proven; however, instead of deleting, the template can be used to improve the page. Khaatir (talk) 09:11, 12 March 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 South Korea–Uruguay relations. as I don't think a third relisting will clarify the situation. And if non-English sources can't be used to establish SIGCOV, I'd like to see where that is mentioned in policy. I think there would be significant pushback as I'm guessing the majority of editors here have a facility in additional languages besides English. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Uruguayans[edit]

Korean Uruguayans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This intersecting ethnicity has some sources, but at 130 people I just don't see the notability beyond trivial information, i.e. most capitals probably have a Korean restaurant. Geschichte (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to South Korea–Uruguay relations. Side note, but I made a solid effort to find WP:SIGCOV in the Korean language about the Korean population in Uruguay and struggled to do so. Some of the Spanish-language refs on the article are actually pretty substantial discussions of the population. toobigtokale (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge Officially, SIGCOV has to be in English. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a different understanding; WP:SIGCOV seems to say Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. There's also this essay WP:SBEXTERNAL that I agree with. If sigcov really excluded non-English sources, I'd push back hard against the policy, and I think I wouldn't be alone. Most of my writing would get deleted overnight, and I'd like to think some of the things I cover that are only covered in Korean are interesting and important. toobigtokale (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also B7 of WP:BEFORE. toobigtokale (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I've made the same mistake. These non-English articles can be translated. Conyo14 (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - I see some issues, but are they irredeemable? Bearian (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article itself is ok enough, the issue is WP:NOTABILITY. toobigtokale (talk) 12:18, 10 March 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× ☎ 07:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Fouzai[edit]

Mohamed Fouzai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

stub about an unnotable sportsperson. apparently didn't even finish in the men's Marathon - T46 event. ltbdl (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tunisia. ltbdl (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it gives us a chance to look into it. apparently didn't even finish in the men's marathon – I don't think this is a fair assessment of the athlete's accomplishments, because he won a silver medal in the T46 men's 5000 m at the same Games, and was 4th in the T46 800 m. When assessing a subject's accomplishments, we should always take their best achievements rather than their worst, as the subject clearly seems to be more of a middle distance specialist. Most importantly to P&G concerns, there is a book about the subject here: Paralympic Competitors for Tunisia: Paralympic Athletes of Tunisia, Farhat Chida, Abbes Saidi, Abderrahim Zhiou, Ali Ghribi, Mohamed Fouzai. ISBN 978-1-158-10041-5.. I tried to investigate if it was an AI / fill-in-the-blanks book by searching for other book titles of the same format, and I was not able to find any, so I think it is a legitimate book even though it says "Currently unavailable". Based on WP:NEXISTS, I am voting to keep. --Habst (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Please reconsider, retract and strike as you see fit. The Paralympic Competitors for Tunisia book is a reprint of Wikipedia articles. It is a print-on-demand based on Wikipedia's category of the same name. I can guarantee you this. During my years on this site I have seen a lot of these floating around. They are easily identifiable by their cover (and topic). Other giveaways are the lack of author and the length of a measly 22 pages. Searching for other book titles of the same format? I get results such as:

Paralympic Swimmers of Israel

Paralympic Competitors for Singapore: Paralympic Bronze Medalists for Singapore, Paralympic Equestrians of Singapore

Paralympic Competitors for the United States

Articles on Spain at the Paralympics, Including

Paralympic Competitors for Mexico : Olympic Wheelchair Racers of Mexico, Paralympic Athletes of Mexico

Articles on Paralympic Competitors for China, Including

Paralympic Competitors for Switzerland : Olympic Wheelchair Racers of Switzerland, Paralympic Athletes of Switzerland

• Geschichte (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Geschichte, thank you both for letting me know about Books LLC, I have struck the part of my comment about that. Then, we have to look for other coverage of the athlete.

I see two sentences of coverage beyond just listing race results here (it mentions when Fouzai surged in the race, not possible to glean this info from just online databases so it indicates some level of on-the-ground reporting or analysis was done): "Athletics Morning Session Review -- Repeat performances -- china.org.cn". www.china.org.cn. Retrieved 2024-02-12.. I wonder if there is a telecast of the race where an announcer may have prepared remarks about Fouzai, that seems like a good direction to go in from here. --Habst (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (Was typing this up as Geschichte replied): @Habst: Unfortunately that book is published by Books LLC per its Google result, which means that it is a reprint from Wikipedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously, the What Links Here featured is the quickest way to check an athlete's accomplishments. Here, we can ascertain that he competed at the 2012 Paralympics as well, so no clear WP:ATD. Woefully short on WP:SIGCOV though. Geschichte (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Geschichte, I agree that is a helpful strategy, though on WP:ATD, I think there is a clear redirect target in Athletics at the 2008 Summer Paralympics – Men's 5000 metres T46 because it is the only race in which the athlete won a medal, and it appears to be the race in which coverage mentions him the most, so it is thus his most significant race. --Habst (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The china.org.cn source will be classified as WP:ROUTINE and nowhere near in-depth. It's two sentences... I'm sorry to to break it, but am just the messenger... Geschichte (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we know his Arabic (I think that's what's spoken in Tunisia?) name? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: It is "محمد فوزي" Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that name, this looks to be an article primary about Fouzai as a leader of the Ministry of Youth And Sports, as a major decision-maker on Paralympic policy and naturalization of athletes: "مصر أولي بأبنائها.. وزارة الرياضة : نرفض تجنيس أبطالنا ونبحث عنهم فى كل مكان بالعالم". almasryalyoum.com (in Arabic). 28 August 2021. This article also extensively quotes Fouzai: "الشباب والرياضة: تقديم كل الدعم لمنتخب كرة القدم لقصار القامة في كأس العالم". www.albawabhnews.com. 2022-02-02. Retrieved 2024-02-18. Based on this new information, I am voting to keep as I think it is clear that sources exist, and these new positions should be added to the article. --Habst (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was not the leader of the Ministry of Youth and Sports in Egypt (or Tunisia), he (or someone with his name) was a spokesman for it. The actual minister is Ashraf Sobhy, who is clearly the person in the image of the "Minister of Youth and Sports" from the first article. It's not clear to me why a Tunisian would be serving as a ministry spokesperson in the government of Egypt, so I suspect this is a different person. JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Different person, as both arms are intact in the image of the spokesman in this article. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow for the potential of more sourcing since his name in local script was identified fairly late in the window
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have not seen any SIGCOV in IRS of this person under either his English or Arabic name. Being quoted in a news article has zero impact on notability, otherwise every single spokesperson for an org whose activities are reported in the media would be notable.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:JoelleJay, thanks for doing this research. Are you sure the caption about Fouzai being the depicted person is accurate, or if it just depicts another person at the conference in error? Because I noticed that same photo is used in an article about Ashraf Sobhi here, where Fouzai is only mentioned briefly at the bottom: [13]

I am careful with my wording to say that the subject is a leader, not the leader. Tunisia and Egypt are geographically close, so I think it is plausible that the subject would work for a sports federation as is common for professional sportspeople after their careers end. Also, what so you think about the WP:ATD of redirecting to his silver-medal-winning race article? Thanks, --Habst (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can search the pictures of spokesperson Fouzai yourself. The search term is his name plus "spokesperson".

No it is not "plausible" that Egypt would hire, as a spokesman of the federal government, a citizen of a country 2000 km away. Minister Sobhi was spokesman Fouzai's doctoral supervisor, that's why he was hired. Don't you think that link, in which Fouzai explains his background on the subject and describes what his thesis says about Olympic tournaments, would maybe mention that he had competed in the Paralympics? JoelleJay (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think you meant to search for "محمد ٠وزي" "المتحدث Ø¨Ø§Ø%. ltbdl (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre error...not sure how that got turned into gibberish (or how that gibberish still seemed to generate results?!), but if this still doesn't work then you can just search "المتحدث باسم" "محمد فوزي" in images. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being quoted or interviewed doesn't help notability here and the discussion above doesn't sway me towards notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]