Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< June 18	June 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 14:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Fergus

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Tkaras1 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Role in the main cast of Passions and lead role in Hellbent, that are notable productions, (at least) have him meet WP:NACTOR imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:12, 20 June 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. Seems to be the consensus to keep in light of new sources, though other keep arguments are weaker. Malinaccier (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Engel

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

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. No rule about number of bracelets won to determine notability. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article was previously created by blocked user, deleted, then re-deleted as G5. New article is fresh and not a G5 candidate. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on potential impact I will not disagree about there not being a rule about what is notable in the poker community around here but there is much inconsistency. If Engel is deemed not to be notable, then probably at least over half of legacy poker articles on here need to be wiped. I noticed the nominator's other tagged deletions, which I agree with because they do not bring much to the table. Bracelets are considered the gold standard in the poker community and three is nothing to scoff at. The circuit rings record alone should warrant merit but that is justm y opinion. Major titles won, money earned, or major impact historically on pop culture through the game should be what merits a player's notability in my opinion. It would be nice to have a set standard on what is deemed worthy so time on improvements is not wasted. Red Director (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have been around the poker community on here for years so although it would be sad to lose legacy articles, some of these do not warrant merit existance at all if this is the standard we want to place. Engel has more accomplishments of note than most of these on a quick glance. Red Director (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"major impact historically on pop culture through the game" - surely someone has described that impact. Then, it's just a matter of writing down who that person was, and we have a source that contributes to notability. The thing we can't do, on the other hand, is that one of us, a Wikipedia user, is the one who discerns the cultural impact. It has to be verified by another party. Geschichte (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Engel definetly does not check the box of culturally impactful poker player lol. The only things that maybe make sense for the article being retained are his accomplishments which gulf many other players here who do not even come close to that pedigree. I do not care if this article stays or leaves personally. Existing articles make a case for keeping is all I am saying. Red Director (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Existing articles make a case for keeping is a WP:WHATABOUTISM. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article to have more information, references, and an external link section. I personally did not think he warranted an article based on what is considered to relevant in this day and age of poker, but he is close in my opinion. One more WSOP bracelet puts in him in a good class of player in the modern age. However, poker is a funny game. He could win his next tournament or never win another one. It seems the fact that a previously blocked user made this page seems to be what put Engel's article on a deletion path when it is not deserved based on what has been allowed to be on here. It just seems odd that we are drawing the line here on this one page when there are plenty of untargeted articles on players who have not done anything of note in one or two decades where their only major accomplishments came during 2003-2007's poker boom. I fully expect this page to be deleted though so no worries if that is the consensus. Red Director (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is still WP:WHATABOUTISM. If you know of other articles that don't measure up, then please nominate them for deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, I found this [1], a primary source where the subject talks about himself. I still don't see enough in RS to build an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Red Director. The bracelets merits inclusion alone but then there's also the record holding of circuit rings (17). Atleast the main events at each circuit tour stop is pro-amateur. There's also a million plus score in a highly regarded event. PsychoticIncall (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those satisfy our requirements for notability per WP:NBIO. Please read WP:SIRS and respond with WP:THREE references that each meet the requirements detailed in SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG [2][3][4][5][6] Also, the two newspaper.com clippings are from the same article. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep while the directory listings don't help, there is plenty of sourcing in the article that counts toward WP:N (unless PokerNews isn't a reliable source for some reason, then the numbers drop a lot). Hobit (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by WikiOriginal-9. One of the newspaper clippings is broken, though. Not sure why. By the way, we also have a dewiki article on this fellow – I've now connected the languages via Wikidata. Toadspike [Talk] 09:10, 20 June 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 is that this article should be Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie Engelhardt

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. School sports isn't notable in the world of athletics, and coverage of children's athletics is not significant enough for Wikipedia. WP:TOOSOON with a few years at best. Geschichte (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Sport of athletics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the vast majority of American high school athletes do not merit coverage on Wikipedia, this specific athlete is not aWP:RUNOFTHEMILL one, and has substantial coverage by independent sources as shown by this Google Search, such as [1], [2], [3], [4]. As stated by Clearfrienda for the Cooper Lutkenhaus article, this amount of coverage satisfies WP:BASIC/GNG. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of a significant high school athlete with Wikipedia Coverage is Quincy Wilson. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources given by KnowledgeIsPower9281 appear to contain significant coverage of the subject and meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Knowledge is Power. GNG pass. I have saved a lengthy feature piece on her at the foot of the article as "Further Reading". If anyone wants to expand the piece, that's a good building block. Carrite (talk) 04:33, 1 July 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. Star Mississippi 21:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Lutkenhaus

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. School sports isn't notable in the world of athletics, and coverage of children's athletics is not significant enough for Wikipedia. WP:TOOSOON with a few years at best. Geschichte (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sport of athletics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There's enough coverage to meet WP:BASIC/GNG as a general entry in my opinion. Doesn't appear to just be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL HS athlete. A Google search shows significant coverage in independent sources. Ex: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] C F A 💬 22:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Several American high school athletes with notable achievements have their own Wikipedia article and significant coverage by independent sources, such as Quincy Wilson. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 23:56, 19 June 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, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination – Editør (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent work sourcing done by @Clearfrienda. Also to directly rebut the nomination – school sports is actually very notable in the field of athletics, take a look at how often "U.S. high school" is covered by World Athletics here: "u.s. high school" site:worldathletics.org. The idea that children's athletes are automatically not notable is also not reflected anywhere in WP policy that I can tell – if the general notability guideline is met, an article can be written. --Habst (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synovus Centre

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Finance, Law, and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:02, 26 June 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. (side of IAR, but with one silent relist there's no indication input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 16:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox (Amiga demogroup)

AfDs for this article:

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. Surprisingly, there isn't significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu].

I am also bundling the disk magazine European Top 20 published by Equinox in this nomination. toweli (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. toweli (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:02, 26 June 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 Vii. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JungleTac

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

Sourced mainly to user-generated forums and the like, could not find reliable sources about them at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I could not find significant coverage in my searches for sources. The company's website is no longer available. I could not find the company's Chinese-language name even after checking archived versions of the company's website like this one from 2010. The company does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't notable, it could possibly be made into a redirect page to the Vii? That was the most notable JungleTac product as far as I could tell. Dr. Precursor (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Precursor (talk · contribs), that's a good suggestion. Redirect to Vii (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. This article from PCMag verifies the connection:
The massive success of the Wii was a boon for bootleggers. Since Nintendo's console wasn't particularly beefy from a technical standpoint, cheap knock-offs didn't have far to go to catch up. Chinese bootleg manufacturer JungleTac rushed the hilariously ratty "Vii" to market in 2007 to capitalize on buyer confusion.
Cunard (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP: N. I found a mention of one of their consoles in a PCMag article and a few mentions in a book, but nothing more. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vii PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:18, 26 June 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 Interactive fiction or a subsection thereof as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 17:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard Sniffer

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

The game was deproded with the rationale that it won awards, but this has no bearing on notability. It lacks significant coverage from reliable sources to justify and fill out a standalone article. It cites clearly user-generated reviews in the vast majority of the reception section rather than actual critics. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, there's not really anything else to add. The game isn't notable, and I don't see why it should have got deproded. λ NegativeMP1 18:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game won five XYZZY Awards and won two awards in the 2017 Interactive Fiction Competition, which are the two most notable competitions for this type of work, and thus distinguishes itself in its genre. The genre is obscure which accounts for the sparse supply of sources. If the subject does not warrant its own article then redirect to Interactive_fiction#Notable_works to preserve history instead of deleting. --Bensin (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and as for sources, I added the review in The Short Game, which adding to Sarah Laskow's and Lynda Clark's reviews, totals the number to three in addition to the three at the Interactive Fiction Database. No sources contradict eachother. --Bensin (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Short Game does not appear to be a reliable source. In fact it admits that it is fan run, with one person in the About Us being "the only person with any real credentials", something that is obvious even from a quick browse of the site. This is not the kind of sourcing we want on Wikipedia. The ability to tell whether a source is reliable is required, as well as being able to judge what topic needs an article, and your recent articles have been less than stellar. For example, Clue (information)? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nor are the articles static. I can't see your username in the history of Clue (information). If you are certain you know its flaws you are welcome to add to it and improve it. The Short Game has made content for over 10 years, and has produced over 400 episodes which all appear to be around one hour each. If they lacked credentials in reviewing games when then started, one can hardly say they lack experience now. Their body of work makes them pretty much experts, and they are certainly more experts than any junior reviewer writing for a large media corporation. --Bensin (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Their body of work makes them experts" there are many unreliable sources with a large body of work listed at WP:Perennial sources such as the Daily Mail, being long-running does not really have a bearing on reliability. But even if we assumed it counted as SIGCOV, that's only one piece of SIGCOV which is insufficient to pass GNG.

I am not sure if there is anything to improve there as the concept of a "clue" is not notable. If you think it is, you offered no real proof in that regard. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself considered Atlas Obscura to be SIGCOV, until I added the reference to The Short Game. Then you edited your statement above with an edit comment without rationale.[12] (It would have been better had you instead added a new post where you transparently stated that you had changed your mind and explained why, rather than editing an existing post to make it seem like that was your stance all along.) There's also the review by Lynda Clark. That makes three SIGCOV in addition to the rest of the sources, which all corroborate each other. Interactive fiction is a small art form and sources are inherently hard to come by, even for a game like this that won both of the two most prominent competitions for interactive fiction. If you still think sourcing is a problem, then I suggest you add {{Expert needed}} at the top of the article so it can be improved upon rather than deleted. Or request sources for any statement in the article that you think is unsourced and that a reader cannot verify and assess themselves (hint: there aren't any).

Regarding Clue (information) (a central concept in many games throughout history), feel free to improve it directly or point out weaknesses on that article's talk page. But that article is not relevant to this discussion here. --Bensin (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero WP:SIGCOV. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Had there been zero significant coverage, I would have agreed with you, and I would not have created the article. But that is simply not the case. --Bensin (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Interactive fiction. Buster Hudson appears to be a relatively known author by the sources. IgelRM (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not going to be mentioned in the interactive fiction article, a redirect would not be very helpful. (And I doubt it should, the whole "notable works" section is already verging on listcruft). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is only a handful of IF games that is in the intersection of winning both IFC and XYZZY and they are worth mentioning. --Bensin (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Interactive_fiction#Notable_works as an alternative to deletion. I think it's just below notability. Atlas Obscura is a reliable source per WP:AOARTICLES and although Medium.com is generally unreliable per WP:MEDIUM, I think Clark qualifies as a "subject matter expert" since she is listed as "PhD Researcher in Interactive Fiction at Nottingham Trent University". Interactive Fiction Competition might be a notable award, but the fact it won doesn't alone count towards notability, it needs some coverage to go along with it. I just think two pieces of SIGCOV is not enough for notability. --Mika1h (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mika1h and Bensin. I changed my vote to Delete as I find no notability, and the small mention that it gets in Interactive fiction is enough. MK at your service. 12:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on why you agree to a mention in the article Interactive fiction but oppose a redirect to that article? --Bensin (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant that it doesn't need to be redirected to the article. It's mentioned in the Interactive fiction and I feel thats enough. MK at your service. 05:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. Is there a reason why you think there should not be a redirect from The Wizard Sniffer to Interactive fiction? If there is a redirect, the edit history is preserved and the article can be easily improved by anyone if new sources emerge. If the article is deleted, there's a risk that someone not familiar with the process of undeleting articles will start from scratch rather than building on what already exists. --Bensin (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think one or two sentences about Hudson can be incorporated on Interactive fiction based on the Atlas Obscura article. I partially did not say delete as preserving edit history may be convenient. IgelRM (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if other participants commented on the replies to their arguments above. --Bensin (talk) 15:21, 3 July 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 2017 Rugby League World Cup squads. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Ulch

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

The Q&A already in the article is the closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found in my searches. The subject fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC) A possible redirect is 2017 Rugby League World Cup squads. JTtheOG (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Florida. JTtheOG (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As many references about his work as a school dean as there is about his rugby career (which isn't many). Mn1548 (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:00, 26 June 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!} 07:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cinderella Project of Baton Rouge

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

Fails WP:GNG; no WP:SIGCOV; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Louisiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This subject lacks any reliable, secondhand and thirdhand, sources that I can find. Also, the article is self-promotional, lacking any analysis that critically reviews its organization and charity efforts. Paul H. (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:00, 26 June 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 Swapan Saha#Filmography. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger (2007 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

2007 film hasn't got any more notable in the seven months since the last AFD. Speedy G4 removed without comment, so here we go again. As in the last AFD, couldn't find a single reliable source in English or Bengali (টাইগার 2007 মিঠুন). The only source cited so far that actually mentions the film is a copy of the film posted to Dailymotion. Recently declined twice at draft by same article creator. A case can be made for salting it now, I think. Wikishovel (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and West Bengal. Wikishovel (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current sourcing is inadequate to satisfy WP:NFILM, no good sourcing came up when searching and none was found during the first AFD either; given the age of the film and elapsed time since the last AFD it is unlikely new sourcing would be available anyway. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:1823:FC07:8CDE:1454 (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swapan Saha#Filmography: director (verifiable: TOI, TV Guide). If the claims on the page are verified, not opposed to keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC) (that was my !vote in the 1st AfD, more or less)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Surinder_Films#Films. Poor sources with no indepth coverage and reliable critic reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All current sources are passing mentions. The film released during the Internet era and should only be recreated with reliable reviews. DareshMohan (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete, per reasons given not to keep this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hagg

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails to meet WP:GNG. No improvement since last AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Hagg Gabriel (talk to me ) 16:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and American football. Gabriel (talk to me ) 16:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Another ridiculous nomination by this user. Clearly meets GNG: [13] [14] [15] [16]. And you absolutely do not know that there's been "no improvement since last AFD" – which was over a decade ago, since there has been... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What tool do you use to cite out those newspaper? They seem to be helpful as they don't appear on Google. Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers.com is accessible to users through the Wikipedia Library. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What do you mean no improvement since the last AFD? Looking at the version from that time, it's pretty clearly been improved upon. Since that nomination, which was before he had ever played in the NFL, he has appeared in 22 NFL games. Being that he was also a third-team All-American and a first-team All-Big 12 player, there's clear WP:SIGCOV that exists. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are an admin. I would like to withdraw my nomination on this subject as I am satisfied with @BeanieFan11 response. Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet the requirements of WP:GNG to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:27, 19 June 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. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hilco (musician)

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

An article about a musician that doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. I sat down for a while trying to find good sources for the individual but to no avail. There is also a close paraphrasing of copied content from a blog here. To crown it all, the article is a run-of-mill. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Africa. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject passes GNG. In 2019 here or here subject was nominated for being "Best Female Artist of the Year" in the UMP Awards. In 2017 here again, subject was nominated in " Best Afro Pop Category of the Year" in the Nyasa Music Awards. Again, in 2018 here she was nominated for being "Best Female Artist of the Year" in Nyasa Awards. I also found this published in 2018, in Nyasa Times, here too, and more here, here, here, another here, by Nthanda Times, again here by The Nation, which can be used to sustain an article (WP:NEXIST)-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may bear or consider the awards though they seem not to be a major musical award. The sources you cited doesn't meet WP:SIRS; they appear to be quotations of the singer or about a releasee of song, which normally gets handled by a PR. I will wait for more participation though. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe I don't think you really did a Google search properly because you said subject has no GNG. Now you say the awards mentioned are not the major awards, can you mention any of major award found in this country? Because those are the only major awards, among others. Again, you might wanna consider checking this for sources about the country. If you find sources that are not reliable there, please post them here for the community's input. Claiming that the awards (or something) is not major without researching is a big turn off as a new page reviewer. Again, some sources provided above such as The Nation here are considered reliable as the source (site) is one of the physical newspapers that started in early 1990s, and this is its online version. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Commenting on what's already out there, I don't see any awards listed in the article whatsoever. The use of tone, formatting, MOS, and writing is very poor and kind of promotional, meaning the article does not state how and why the subject is notable. "She was born on 14 February 1995 in a family of six children in Blantyre." that is really not necessary and the statement is cited to a non-reliable source. "Hilco has been featured by different artists in the country such as Saint on a track "wanga (mine)" and "Usanapite (Don't go) that features the voice of Dan Lufani." She may be featured by Jesus but still not be notable as notability is not inherent. The "See also" section is also unnecessary.
Now looking at the notability of the subject, I don't see anything claiming that she meets any of the criteria listed at WP:NSINGER and for what it's worth, the article is not convincing that they meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. And looking at WP:WikiProject Malawi/Malawian sources, there is no claim that the listed sources are reliable as there is a goal to review the sources. The website may be notable but not its content, for example Sportskeeda, Sputnik and so on at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Frankly, I do not blame the reviewer for seeking consensus here as there's not much in this article. dxneo (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, Tumbuka Arch, you are that guy I pleaded with to make sure their articles are cited to reliable sources before moving them to mainspace on this AfD. We can't keep discussing the same problem over and over and then you later decide to improve the article when it's on AfD. Please refrain from doing this and if there are more of your articles like this one and the aforementioned, please work on them before they get here too. dxneo (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent improvements. dxneo (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dxneo, what improvement? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, the article was not like that when I first saw it. Honestly, it was a mess, but it is well formatted now. And the subject pass WP:MUSICBIO. Doesn't she? dxneo (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. withdrawn as keep per WP:HEY. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:51, 29 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uri Gordon (anarchist)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO and lacks WP:SIGCOV. The sources here, as well as those found in a WP:BEFORE search, are primary in that they consist mainly of interviews and self-published works by the article subject. No in-depth, third party articles by reliable publications would be found. As an editor commented on the article Talk page, appearance in other language Wikis is not among criteria for evaluating notability for the English Wikipedia. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politics, Israel, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (not yet a !vote): his Google Scholar profile [17] shows three publications with triple-digit citation counts; this sounds strong to me but how does it compare to others in similar topics? I found and added to the article three published reviews (in academic journals from mainstream publishers) of his book Anarchy alive!, but I didn't find reviews for his other books Routledge Handbook of Radical Politics, Six Zionist Essays, Hier und jetzt: anarchistische Praxis und Theorie (maybe a translation of Anarchy alive!?), and Anarchists Against the Wall: Direct Action and Solidarity with the Palestinian Popular Struggle. Another review of at least a second book would be needed for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a wee note that Six Zionist Essays was written by a different Uri Gordon. — LittleDwangs (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing. Thanks for the correction. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a couple of reviews of Anarchists Against the Wall, one in Fifth Estate (Spring/Summer 2014, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p34-35) and one in Social Movement Studies (May 2016, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p335-338). — LittleDwangs (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1, WP:AUTHOR, and the additional reliably-published reviews found by LittleDwangs, which I have found links for and added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I found the arguments by David Eppstein convincing.Whizkin (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep per WP:PROF#C1 as discussed by David. --hroest 17:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR by sources indicated above. gidonb (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1, WP:AUTHOR as above — LittleDwangs (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anarchy Alive! There is no extended reliable, secondary source coverage of note about the author himself, discounting passing mentions and interviews (which are primary sources). The most that has been written about him are the academic reviews of his book Anarchy Alive which are already in that dedicated article, as they're more about the book than the author. That Anarchists Against the Wall has one academic review (not counting Fifth Estate, which is a partisan periodical) does not bring us any more closer to being able to write a dedicated biography that does justice to Gordon. The standard here is to cover the author within his book article, if he's better known for that book than for any other thing. czar 01:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahwahnee Heritage Days

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

Little coverage of event to be found, thereby failing WP:GNG. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, History, and Popular culture. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very little coverage, fails WP:NEVENT. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:47, 19 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bogo Blay

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

An article about a musician that doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN. The reality show he won wasn't notable as it would have been redirected there. After accessing the sources, I can say this article's context, and sourcing is not enough for our general notability guidelines. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Africa, and Ghana. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails MUSICIAN and GNG. Tkaras1 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator, as the musician is only visible in his own social media and self-uploading sites, and the reality show victory is insignificant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:35, 22 June 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. (non-admin closure) Renewal6 (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Klingenberg

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

Theatre actor/director/manager with no evidence of notability. Single reference provided is from a wiki. No notable works (regardless of WP:NOTINHERITED anyway). MIDI (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know where you looked. I looked at the German Wikipedia, and saw solid biographies for sources, and several notable awards. I don't know what kind of "works" you expect from an actor and stage director. His prime was well before the internet, so no wonder that there few online reviews. - I'm willing to expand the article, but won't have time before Monday. Help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the sources are good enough to use you could transfer them over to the English Wikipedia article. Procyon117 (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly read my comment to the end: yes, but I have no free time until Monday. You can begin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I can’t see how notability is in question at all. The subject was accorded the highest civil honour by the Austria for services to the republic. Mccapra (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. There is significant coverage in highly reliable German sources — Zeit [18], Süddeutsche Zeitung [19]. There is article in Der Standard [20].

As was mentioned, he does have awards, see German wikipage. There are notable works. BilboBeggins (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Taking the page about an obviously notable director to Afd the day after his death is wrong. And Prodding the page about one of his films (Was wäre, wenn...?) with no evidence of any basic BEFORE was wrong too (I deproDed it and expanded it). Nominator, please kindly withdraw. Just read the obituary in Die Zeit (https://www.zeit.de/kultur/2024-06/theaterdirektor-regisseur-gerhard-klingenberg). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The man was a star in the Deutscher Sprachraum. Just because we didn't hear much about him in the English-speaking world, that doesn't make him unnotable. Oh, and by the way, I'll see what I can do to improve the article. Kelisi (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 19 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Se-tenant (disambiguation)

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

I fail to find any reference that the term se-tenant is a type of house. - Altenmann >talk 15:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: didn't find either any mention in a dictionary of se-tenant also means semi-detached house. If it's a regionalism, we could create a redirect, but the disamb page would still be unnecessary. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I also thought is a French-language regionalism eg in Louisiana, but it must be discussed in the target article before we make any kind of disambiguation.- Altenmann >talk 16:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Semi-detached house, also known as a se-tenant house" is WP:OR not backed up by anything in the target article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:52, 23 June 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. Any user can redirect this title to a suitable target if one is found. ✗plicit 14:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Kenton Council

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

Scouting council is an organization, thus is expected to meet WP:NCORP which the organization in question fails miserably. Hyper-local branch of a larger organization. WP:BRANCH. I suggest delete, and re-direct to target if suitable one can be found. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, United States of America, Kentucky, and Ohio. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Delete or redirect. Bduke (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:57, 26 June 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 Chacha Chaudhary#Adaptation. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chacha Chaudhary (2002 TV series)

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

Fails WP:GNG. It only has two ref. M S Hassan (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and bioth are dead links to TV listings. - Altenmann >talk 16:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chacha Chaudhary] - Altenmann >talk 16:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chacha_Chaudhary#Adaptation. Poor sources with no indepth coverage and reviews. RangersRus (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chacha_Chaudhary#Adaptation. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The views for deletion carry more P&G weight, but failed to achieve consensus. Owen× ☎ 09:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shafqat Baloch

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

The subject fails to meet the GNG. I don't see sig/in-depth coverage. While he received a military award, so have thousands of other soldiers, but that doesn't mean we should create biographies for all of them citing ANYBIO. Fwiw- the bio contains WP:OR , contains PROMO, is unsourced and flagged for copyvio as well. Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Saqib, I've readded some info removed over copyright after fixing it which goes into detail on his role in 65 war. Waleed (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no SIGCOV in RS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in depth based on any independent or reliable sources thus it discouraged me from opposing the idea of D-Prod.223.123.5.35 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry Saqib; although I share with you that this article exists in a terrible condition and has a plenty of WP:OR, we can't deny the fact that it passes WP:ANYBIO and should be kept. Nawaiwaqt has a detailed article of Shafqat Baloch dated 2 September 2019, although not much Nation reports his death in more than a paragraph. This should also be helpful. His role has had a significant impact, as well. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 07:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Aafi, OK, I value your opinion, but I'd like to point out that the coverage in Nawaiwaqt is a column, an opinion piece, by guest columnist Aslam Lodhi and the coverage in the other sources is either routine or trivial mentions, none of which meet the GNG criteria. These sources can indeed be used for WP:V purposes but not suitable for establishing GNG, where the threshold is higher. Anyway, I don't have anything more to add on this. As for WP:ANYBIO, I've clarified my concerns above. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib, thanks for adding these two cents. I did not say that these are enough for GNG but we have an established practice of SNGs and it is really not necessary that each and everything would pass GNG. Those that don't are finely evaluated by SNG practices of which ANYBIO is one. This subject has twice received a highest military award in their country and this is verified, and all that routine/minimal/short/whatever, information, is only helpful to support the claims. GNG is just impossible for everything, and as you say, nothing else needs to be said. If a thousand soldiers, authors or anyone else, pass any of our subjective criterias, it is really within our scope to have articles/short biographies of them created on this encyclopedia, or otherwise just collectively cancel all of these subjective criterias, if we don't want to. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 09:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. All sources have no in-depth coverage. AmericanY (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't this an evidence of SIGCOV. A twice award recipient of the third highest military honor is notable. What is it with this deletion? Is there anything am missing? Sources seems to be offline. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is seriously no problem. The subject clearly passes a subjective notability criteria and GNG/SIGCOV is really not a thing here. If we discard subjective notability here, I guess a huge bulk of articles would need to be wiped up and all ther subjective criteria's discarded. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 18:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject passes WP:ANYBIO, He has received the Sitara-e-Jurat Award twice. Youknow? (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It has long been established that two third-level gallantry awards are not sufficient to qualify for WP:ANYBIO #1, even before WP:SOLDIER was deprecated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage [21] enough to pass notability. 2404:3100:144D:486A:1:0:87B8:496E (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Briefly mentioned in articles about the movie (source 7), but I don't find much of anything about this person otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
do you have a say on WP:ANYBIO, leaving aside coverage needed to pass GNG? _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 10:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aafi, But we don't have a consensus that WP:ANYBIO # 1 override the GNG requirement. WP:ANYBIO also says: 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.. Fwiw, there's an ongoing debate about this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:ANYBIO at AfD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib, thanks, this is something I was looking for. Notability is always presumed. WP:GNG also says it, "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." However, thanks for the link and I believe the outcome of this AfD should consider the result of this discussion that you have linked. I'd be glad to change my opinion given where that discussion on WP:ANYBIO goes. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 13:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lack of coverage is a lack of coverage, regardless of which notability criteria you choose. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aafi. Nawaiwaqt covered his death, Aslam Lodhi has covered Baloch twice ([22], [23]) in Nawaiwaqt. Note, most of the coverage is in Urdu language and is clearly visible if someone searches with Urdu string ("شفقت بلوچ") on Google Books there is a lot of coverage which is visible with snippet previews. Some coverage in Phool visible here, some in-depth coverage here, this book describes him as a national hero in the visible snippet, this book says he fought alongside Aziz Bhatti - another national hero, this and this book describes how he fought the battle. There is plenty available on Google Books to stitch together a detailed biography about him, so clearly meets WP:BASIC which says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Thank you. 5.30.172.24 (talk) 22:59, 9 July 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, Owen× ☎ 07:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is also subject of a film. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- امین اکبر, OK, but does being subject of a film make someone qualify for a WP bio? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage in [24] [25], [26] indicates notability. As per The Nation, he was awarded Sitara-e-Jurat (third highest military award of Pakistan) twice [27]. Libraa2019 (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP After reviewing the discussion above and all the reliable sources for this article, I am convinced this article is worth keeping...Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. To the nominator, you can't rely on just a Google search. Please do a more thorough BEFORE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Cromartie

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

Before I had to look into the reference section of the article I had to google about the subject and there was no significant coverage about the subject. I don’t see how he is notable. The only news was about his signing, in other meaning, fails to meet WP:GNG. The bunch of source on the article 95% was just singing and profile, nothing else. Gabriel (talk to me ) 15:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, American football, and Handball. Gabriel (talk to me ) 15:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Unquestionably notable as a four-season modern NFL player with extensive coverage (as anyone with his credentials would have): [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] etc. Clearly notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Louisiana, Texas, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's very clearly enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided by BeanieFan easily meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG.--Mooon FR (talk) 20:07, 19 June 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 Inferior Five. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Brigade

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

Non-notable superhero "team" that only appeared in two issues as gag characters related to the more notable Inferior Five. The article is sourced only to the comic issues themselves, and searches turn up no significant coverage on the characters at all. What very little there is that mentions the group is merely repeating that they were made up as part of the backstories for the Inferior Five. Merging to an article like List of teams and organizations in DC Comics would be inappropriate, not only due to the extreme lack of sourcing, but due to the fact that they were never actually a real team in the comics. At best, this could be redirected to the Inferior Five article, but given the extreme obscurity of the topic, I am not convinced it would even be a useful search term. Rorshacma (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Rorshacma (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inferior Five per WP:ATD - it is the cruftiest of fancruft that is even possible, one-off background characters in service of another character's backstory. If the Inferior Five is also deleted or redirected, then this should probably be straight-up deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zxcvbnm. It's questionable if this meets WP:N, but this is a valid WP:ATD for now. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:02, 26 June 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. This was almost certainly heading for deletion anyway, but there's no point wasting further editor time on it, because in addition to the other reasons for deletion, it qualifies for speedy deletion criterion G5, as the article was created by Abdiaziizho while evading multiple blocks. JBW (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Som Production (SP)

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

The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for companies and the article is written like an advertisement. Ae245 (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ae245 (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that a CSD A7 tag was placed on the page and then removed without much proper attempt to fix the problems makes me vote delete too. Procyon117 (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wrote promotionally, sources are only primary. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 15:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Advertising, and Somalia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP, the somali inside news ref looks like a paid placement and certainly reads like an ad, a bouncewatch entry doesn't count for notability, and is little moe than a database entry anyway. All other sources primary, and searching does not come up with anything else. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:1823:FC07:8CDE:1454 (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet notability guidelines and is promotional. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdirahman Ali. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The fact that this page is deleted and then removed without much proper attempt to solve the problems is my vote keep too.192.145.175.211 (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC) This comment was posted by Abdiaziizho while evading multiple blocks. JBW (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if secondary sources are added, and article is reworded to be less like an advert (per WP:5P2, WP:ADVOCACY and WP:ADVOCACY). —Mjks28 (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Who can tell me why this article should be deleted while it can be revised and strengthened with additional sources? You may have a different opinion than mine.Somalipictures (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC) This comment was posted by Abdiaziizho while evading multiple blocks. JBW (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please list them, because I'm not able to find any that's significant, reliable, secondary and independent of this subject. Ae245 (talk) 11:38, 23 June 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!} 07:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shore Acres, Mamaroneck

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

Non-notable location within Mamaroneck, New York. Only thing I can find out about the place is that a 2021 trench collapse that killed a worker occurred there, but I doubt that alone would pass the notability criteria. Procyon117 (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Procyon117 (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best that I could find. Appears to mostly be important to the Shores Acres Point Club. Supporting Delete given lack of available sources or obvious notability, and it got moved to mainspace after being rejected by the AFC process. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:02, 26 June 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. Superficially, views appear evenly split between Keep and Delete. Closer inspection, however, shows the Delete views to be solidly anchored in notability guidelines, while the Keep views who bother to provide a reason all hang their !vote on WP:AUTHOR criterion #2 - "originating a significant new concept", for coining the term "soft addiction", without providing any evidence that the term is, indeed, significant or new. In fact, even an ATD in the form of a redirect to Soft addiction, which itself is a redirect to Behavioral addiction, would be odd, seeing as Wright's name isn't even mentioned in the target. And as some pointed out, coining a term that is not a significant new concept doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR C#2. Once the "soft addiction" basis is discarded as not supporting notability, we're left with a clear consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 23:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Sewell Wright

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Mdann52 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Law. Mdann52 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find book reviews, so not passing AUTHOR. No mentions in media that i can find, what's now used for sourcing in the article is primary or linked to paper sources that I can't locate online. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you need reviews for the books, they are in the Amazon postings of the books. I may not be a Wikipedia expert, but I do know that Judith has, in fact, written these books. If you want to look her up as an author in general: https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AJudith+Wright+EdD&s=relevancerank&text=Judith+Wright+EdD&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1

Does that somehow not qualify? I do not understand. KreftMM (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KreftMM: By "reviews" we normally mean articles discussing books and covering them in depth, not just reviews on shopping sites. Mdann52 (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that feedback. It will help me in other regards - however, I am no longer working on Judith's Wikipedia page in any regard. KreftMM (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. in WP:AUTHOR, one of the criteria for notability is that 'The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique'. It looks to me like Wright is either the originator of the concept of soft addiction or at the very least a leading author on the topic. Also, I can find book reviews- I am not sure where you were looking.Spiralwidget (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2024

@Spiralwidget: I note the soft addiction thing - but I don't know if it's a "significant new" concept, as the concept seemed to be known and studied under the name "behaviour addition" from before her time (and the article redirects there now) - however with that being the only claim to notability, I didn't think it met the bar. Mdann52 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC) EDIT: I have to review this as instead a Comment. I could not find reviews outside of Amazon Books and she seems to receive remarkably little attention by major publications.

Reviews are available on the books in every place they are available for purchase. I can also provide additional book reviews, as well as sources for where she has been in the media. Such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlE0y5gYH1I, https://www.grandmagazine.com/2018/03/transformational-learning-age/, https://beta.prx.org/stories/94668, https://blacktortoisepress.com/tag/oprah-winfrey-show/

I'll admit that I don't know what types of sources are preferred on Wikipedia, but I can assure you I can provide the right kind if you educate me. KreftMM (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too knowledgeable either, but per WP:RSPRIMARY, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over others. Procyon117 (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Illinois, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wright's coining of soft addiction, per WP:AUTHOR, makes her notable. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR, according soft addiction.--Mooon FR (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I refined my search to "Judith Wright" + soft addictions, and found multiple sources through ProQuest and Newspapers.com and through Google that verify she did coin the term. Sacramento Bee, Sac Bee continued, Orlando Sentinel, author, Judith Wright, coined the term "soft addictions" more than 12 years ago, Judith Wright, who labeled the phenomenon more than a decade ago, a term she coined several years ago, so she appears to meet WP:AUTHOR#2. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources provided by Isaidnoway, WP:AUTHOR#2 is satisfied. Sal2100 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an editor can provide references to reliable, fully independent sources that devote significant coverage to Sewell Wright. Sources brought forward are passing mentions of her, and quotations from her, generated by the marketing campaigns for her books. Sources that call her a "life coach and lifestyles expert" are clearly parroting her self promotional activities. Yes, she coined the phrase "soft addiction" but that refers to a psychiatric condition and she has no known formal training in psychiatry or psychology or psychotherapy or counseling or anything relevant. As for Amazon reviews, they are worthless for establishing notability since Amazon is in the business of selling almost everything including non-notable books by non-notable authors, as in this case. She is definitely not a "leading author" on Behavioral addiction. Many of the leading authors are in the reference section of that well-referenced article, and she is not among them. Cullen328 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given by Cullen328, at least for now. No editor has yet provided examples of significant coverage of "soft addiction" in fully independent non-promotional venues/outlets. As far as I can tell, all the links to news clippings above are associated with Wright's books, interviews directly with Wright, promotions of her seminars, or all three. SunTunnels (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article needs an update, it certainly meets the notability criteria. Bexaendos (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bexaendos, please point out reliable sources completely independent of Sewell Wright that devote significant coverage to Sewell Wright. Cullen328 (talk) 21:21, 23 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Datu Mombao Romato

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

Non-notable local politician. As mayor, does not meet NPOL presumed notability. Could not find any sources suitable to satisfy the GNG, references are to facebook posts and reports (primary). microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as of now, not enough SIGCOV to satisfy GNG. Was only able to find five mentions of this person, all of which were mere mentions in lists. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator

TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:23, 24 June 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. Star Mississippi 16:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zugara

AfDs for this article:

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

Some days ago, Wikilover3509 (talk · contribs) tried to nominate this article for deletion, but ended up editing a previous nomination for a previous article at this title. Their rationale follows:

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts.

This is mostly procedural on my part; I offer no opinion or further comment beyond noting that this has been tagged as, among other things, a possible WP:CORP failure since 2012. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this company not noteworthy for inclusion when other similar advertising/technology companies such as The Barbarian Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Barbarian_Group) and AR software companies such as Metaio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaio) and Total Immersion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Immersion_(augmented_reality) seem to be fine? MHSzymczyk (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MHSzymczyk That is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and not a valid argument. If you can show significant coverage in reliable sources, that would be much more convincing. Toadspike [Talk] 12:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The Venture Beat articles are RS, they're mentioned about the virtual dressing rooms in the NY Times article. The virtual dressing room seems to have gotten traction, I'd say we have just barely enough to pass. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the VB website is RS but which one of the stories meets GNG/NCORP? There are 4 stories, I can't figure out which one you might be referring to, for me the all fail either/or CORPDEPTH/ORGIND. The virtual dressingroom details are all derived from their Press Release on their patent grant. The NYT article mentions the company once, because it included a quote from the company's CEO. Fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous relist has not cleared things up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:15, 26 June 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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Article is REFBOMBED so I won't provide a source analysis but if anyone feels there are sources that have been overlooked or missed, please link below and indicate which page/paragraph contains content that meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough significant coverage at this time. The results of internet searches are either self-published, blogs, and mere brief mentions. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:36, 28 June 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 13:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise Miles

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

Lack of referencing to prove notability. Source 1 is the best thing in the article, and it's fairly trivial (it's a promotion, not a news story). Sources 2, 5 and 7 are unavailable. Source 3 is an advert. Source 4 is clearly promotional copy. Source 6 deals with a different company and source 8 is not reliable. And the official website link in the External links section is dead. Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find their website on ROL Cruises and a few links to travel companies that offer this reward program. Noting for notability found; the source analysis in the nom is spot-on. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I could not find significant coverage in my searches for sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 08:02, 20 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hip Abduction

AfDs for this article:

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

Do not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Most sources available appears to be routine coverage. Two previous AfDs however no more recent sourcing appears to be out there. Mdann52 (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Florida. Mdann52 (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Since the last AfD they finally achieved a few feature articles in their local news media, currently at footnotes #1 and #3. They might just barely meet the minimum requirements for reliable coverage at WP:NBAND, though I will not dispute anyone who questions whether those sources are significant. The band's name is brilliant BTW. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think those are "significant" hence the nomination (and I would argue those sources are routine, but that's open for debate I guess!) Mdann52 (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as the feature articles mentioned above they also have an AllMusic staff written bio here although it is on the short side. Haven't done a full search yet. There is also the claim that they had a release chart on a specialist Billboard Regae chart. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've noticed many past users have tried to add this article to Wikipedia several times, and it definitely has enough sources to prove its notability. I've seen articles on the site with far less sources that are significant enough to keep. BeatBro (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two articles mentioned by Doomsdayer [33][34] show sigcov. Footnote 5 [35], although an interview, has a decently long intro. I'd argue that these meet the GNG. The other two footnotes don't count, as one is a show announcement and the other is way too short. The News Herald source mentions that "The Hip Abduction has embarked on a national tour that began in early March." Since that was 2020, I'm not sure how the tour ended up going, but it should meet item 4 of NBAND: Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of [...] a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. Toadspike [Talk] 18:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The Keep arguments carry very little weight, but after three weeks, there is still no quorum to delete. Closing without prejudice against immediate renomination. Owen× ☎ 15:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erel Segal

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST, WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV, just dummy articles! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and Israel. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a very well known and prominent journalist. The article has over a dozen sources, and I will shortly add more Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Rain24, can you share your WP:THREE please? Journalists are among the hardest to research. gidonb (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this provides an in depth look at Segal's political views and places them in the context of Israeli right wing media, and indicates notability beyond Israeli media
this is a lengthy, in-depth interview dedicated to Segal, in Israel's highest circulation mainstream newspaper. This alone satisfies WP:SIGCOV.
this provides English language coverage of a notable controversy he was involved with, showing notability beyond Israel (DW is a German broadcaster)

Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

#2 and #3 are not independent. BuzzFeed isn't very good but the journalist who wrote #1 is. gidonb (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzfeed News is rated "green" and reliable on WP:RSNP. Why you'd think that ynet and deutsche welle are not independent of Segal is beyond me. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these are interviews, quoted content, and shared sexism in a tv-show. Not independent content or SIGCOV. These media are actually good. Buzzfeed is acceptable because of the author. gidonb (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misreading the defintion of "independent" - ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent."- an interview with Segal is not produced by him but by the paper and journalist interviewing him.

Regardless, while the DW article includes a very short quote from Segal, it is neither an interview nor focused on that quote. Instead, it describes the controversy Segal was involved with, with other 3rd parties commenting about Segal. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look and weigh again how much is independent content about Segal. Not ruling out any conclusion yet. gidonb (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's coverage that mentions him, such as the DW article, but these aren't about this person. This [36] also mentions him, but just barely as the article talks about his employer. We don't have enough substantial coverage to keep the article Oaktree b (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that "mentions him, but just barely " is a fair assessment of [37] - the article is about an event in which he is the main subject - his employer suspended him for something he did. He is the subject of both the headline and the sub-headline, he is the main topic of the first and second paragraphs ("The Kan public broadcasting corporation on Thursday suspended one of its anchors because he appeared in a video"; "News presenter Erel Segal was suspended, pending further notice, after the video was uploaded to Netanyahu’s Twitter account earlier Thursday."), he is mentioned in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs and is the subject of the 5th, there's a quote from the PM of Israel about him etc... Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very well-known journalist in Israel, and there are many sources for this. In addition, he is also a writer (2 books) and a musician. (Full disclosure: I wrote the article). HaOfa (talk) 09:33, 27 June 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) 14:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting NAUTHOR. gidonb (talk) 23:03, 9 July 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. Received confirmation from blocking admin that the creating user was indeed the sock of a blocked user blocked before the creation of this article, making the article WP:CSD#G5 eligible. ‎. UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kolomiets

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

Not notable spam page; created by a WMF globally banned user (banned for block evasion also). The sources are not enough to establish notability Waterproof fish (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it as the article is nominated by one of Bodiadub's socks. I’m also asking to do a check on User:Hypeconomist, user:Shefeditor along with the user:Waterproof fish account. All accounts are united by the fact that they have a small number of edits. All three accounts remove the same information from the article, which is related to Global Ledger company. I ask the User:MER-C checkuser to pay attention to this information. Король мавп (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Israel, and Ukraine. UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 19 June 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. This seems to be going the way of WP:SNOW keep due to existing sources that were missed by the nominator. As I would !vote keep as well, might as well close this to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Next Door (anime)

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

Unsourced. Search results for both the anime and eroge show a bunch of anime with similar names but not exactly this one, except for Anime News Network's encyclopedia. Fails notability. Neocorelight (Talk) 10:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. Neocorelight (Talk) 10:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I searched for: "Girl Next Door" "anime" -demon and didn't find anything. Searching for "Girl Next Door" "eroge" showed nothing either. Dream Focus 12:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator didn't bother to look at the talk page where you can see a bunch of reviews listed, all reliable sources per WP:A&M/ORS. 2 reviews by Mania.com (former AnimeOnDVD): [38], [39], review by THEM Anime Reviews, review by Animefringe, paragraph in an article by ANN. ANN is not SIGCOV but the other sites' coverage is enough to meet WP:GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't, sorry, because there's no hint at all that there's something in the talk page. Neocorelight (Talk) 13:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE says to check the talk page before nominating. Also when you're editing the article and the talk page has a "refideas" template, at the top of the page there's a note that reads: "There are suggestions on this article's talk page for references that may be useful when improving this article in the future." --Mika1h (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also might note that although the Hentai Jump is an unreliable source, the review is by Mike Toole, who later wrote for Anime News Network: [40]. --Mika1h (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; based on the sources provided by Mika1h, this clearly meets WP:GNG since at least the Mania and THEM sources are reliable and significant coverage. Link20XX (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources found giving it significant coverage. Dream Focus 14:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St David's School, Purley

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school. The best I can find is this brief article in the local paper about the children making a music video, which seems run of the mill and not worth adding. I do not think the school meets WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Tacyarg (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability whatsoever. Cannot find anything else either. Procyon117 (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Pawelec

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

The article of this Polish businessman, written like WP:PROMO, may fail WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Pawelec has never been elected to any public office nor has he even been a member of any Polish political party. My search do not show anything better than primary sources. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bilateral relations, Politics, and Angola. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Likely a flawed translation of the Polish version, which has identical content. Sourcing might be largely in Polish and hard to find. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 3 July 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!} 00:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cottage Hill, Indiana

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

An area on the west side of Brazil, I'm not getting reading on whether it was ever considered a town unto itself. What I can see of it looks like maybe a neighborhood, maybe just a locale.... Right now it's just a phrase on a map and the name of a cemetery. Mangoe (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Current only sources is the GNIS, which has been ruled unreliable/not counted as official legal recognition by WP:NGEO. Likely just a hill. OpenStreetMap puts the label right next to the cemetery, on the outskirts of Brazil, Indiana. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cottage Hill was one end of an interurban streetcar line to Harmony, Indiana.^[1] that opened in 1893 and probably went out of business in the 1920s or 1930s. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Fisher, Vicky. "When the trains stopped" (PDF). Bell Memorial Public Library.

I tried to get information on this line, without a great deal of success. Everyone talking about it says that the east end was in Harmony; but they they don't all say that the west end was in Cottage Hill. I neve found a source that showed a map of the line. And again, this is a passing reference: stations and stops ae not the same thing as towns. Mangoe (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a particularly bad nomination; a simple newspaper search will generate hundreds of articles and mentions. See, for example, just whipping up a random something-something quickly for our purposes here, THIS town coverage from a special correspondent, datelined Cottage Hill, from the South Bend Tribune of June 25, 1908. Carrite (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THIS from a 1911 issue of the Brazil Daily Times mentions a "Cottage Hill band" giving a box supper at "Cottage Hill school". Carrite (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of these more or less passing references says that Cottage Hill is a town unto itself and not just a neighborhood of Brazil. Mangoe (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my search shows a gazetteer from the 1860s showing it was listed as a post office. [41] on page 530 talks about the person who bought a farm and cleaned the place up and then created the Cottage Hill cemetery using his surname as a possessive pronoun. I'm also not convinced by the newspaper clippings which have been presented so far. One is from South Bend and all the other small places it lists are from the greater South Bend region, but this is on the other side of Indiana, and the second just shows there was a school named Cottage Hill. I'm willing to be convinced, but I think this was a post office and cemetery and farm based on my research, and I typically will tend to vote Keep on these things. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~leaning delete.~~
- I can't find a Cottage Hill in the microfilmed Clay Co post office records.
- it don't see it on the 1915 county map, altho maybe I missed it.
- it's only mentioned as "Cottage Hill Cemetery" in the 1909 county history
- can't really find any news coverage discussing it as a populated place at any point
- It might have been a preexisting location on the National Road but finding no evidence of that (yet?)
- The interurban stop probably doesn't qualify it for notability
- I'd be open to a redirect to Dick Johnson Township or a move to Cottage Hill Cemetery but meh.
- Update: I skimmed a history of early transport in Indiana and no sign of Cottage Hill just the discouraging comment "The country lying between Terre Haute and Indianapolis was an almost unbroken wilderness, the settlements were separated by extensive and gloomy forests, and only a few villages were scattered along the line of the National Road. The railroad left this latter highway at Plainfield, from which point to Greencastle but a few settlements were to be found, and beyond that place for a number of miles conditions were even worse." There's a map that includes Brazil as a stop but Cottage Hills makes no appearance.
- Hahaha Cunningham Tavern on the National Road burned down 1855/1856. So maybe something!

jengod (talk) 21:43, 10 July 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I regret to inform that this location is notable, or at least is the setting of a folksy and charming yarn about Abe Lincoln in 1858. I have expanded the history section and will add a touch more from the 20th century shortly. jengod (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite; and per WP:NTEMP. Shotgunheist ^💬 16:29, 12 July 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 13:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivano Bertini (astronomer)

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

The astronomer doesn't seem to be notable. There are only two references in the page, both from minorplanetcenter.net, and there isn't a single article that discuss Bertini. Ok, there's a minor planet named after him, but I don't think that this is enough Redjedi23 (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that the article was written by Ivano Bertini himself. Redjedi23 (talk) 09:25, 19 June 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 June 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a minor planet named after you, for a minor planet researcher, is commonplace even for quite junior researchers; I don't think it's a sign of notability. When checking citation counts, it's important to distinguish the Padua/Naples astronomer (this subject) from the Florence chemist (who looks notable to me). Astronomy can be a high-citation subject with many coauthors, where I think first-author position is quite important. Unfortunately the chemist makes it difficult to search for publications by author name and we don't have a Google Scholar profile to go by. However, preliminary searching found that his significant publications include "67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko" (the name of a comet) in their title. Filtering for that found 87 publications, among which his first-author publications have citation counts 64, 21, 16. Some other publications among that set have much higher citation counts. Some of his first-author publications have no citations at all. So he seems to be part of a successful research team but has not stood out from the team as the leader of its most important works. I did also find separately first-author publications "Modeling of the light scattering properties of cometary dust using fractal aggregates" (57 cites), "Activity evolution, outbursts, and splitting events of comet 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3" (19 cites), and "Photometric observations of comet 81P/Wild 2 during the 2010 perihelion passage" (14 cites), still not enough for WP:PROF#C1. He has a textbook Fundamentals of Astronomy but was added as an author only for the second edition of the book, so I don't think that counts for enough either. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. David is spot on here, as usual. Qflib (talk) 16:29, 25 June 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!} 07:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrio Cortes

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

Does not have references even though it is a biography, the only thing I could find were news outlets talking about his son, Demetrio Cortes Jr. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and Philippines. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found a couple passing mentions in books, but nothing to establish WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 09:11, 26 June 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 13:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olfat Berro

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

Non-notable business executive Runmastery (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Bibliographies. Runmastery (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find PR items about this person's appointment to various positions. Not meeting notability and lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Created by now-blocked User:Content.Media2023 (Spams / advertising-only account). The only other article this user created is declined Draft:Hassan Ezzeldine, which also needs to be deleted. — Maile (talk) 13:22, 19 June 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 Stock exchange. Owen× ☎ 14:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stock exchanges of small economies

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

This page is confusion as small economies are not defined and so would make more sense to create an article for each country instead. I don't see how this article can be kept up to date and what should be included, would countries go in and out over time as their economies change? The current content is out of date, which could be fixed, but it comes back to the purpose of this article. I feel the best solution at this stage is to delete it. Sargdub (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete This reads more like a college econ paper, and even if there is something there (and again, this comes across as topic, if it be viable, for the main stock exchange article) WP:TNT seems like the best solution. Mangoe (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep Article cites 4 research papers and 16 references on the very subject. The article could use some work, but it is obviously an important subject of study in both econ and development. On the criticism that it cannot stay up to date - how is it different than anything on wikipedia? Valuable start to a complex subject. Keep. Spencerk (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Stock exchange: This can be discussed topic in a broader article, which should be easier to navigate for users anyway. Only one of the papers focuses specifically on stock markets in smaller countries, and none of them appear to be important enough to have inline citations in the article. Even if sourcing is improved, WP: TNT is relevant, and there would need to be a very compelling reason why this is easier to navigate than putting it in the main Stock exchange article. I also think the Keep vote above grossly exaggerates the quality of sourcing in the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:13, 26 June 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) 14:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Stock exchange My knee-jerk reaction is that I would love to read an article about how the stock exchanges of small economies are different from regular stock exchanges. It sounds educative and super neat. Upon viewing the article itself, however, that's not what it does. Upon a cursory look, almost all the sources cover individual stock exchanges, not small-economy stock exchanges as a concept. This article is arguably WP:OR for that reason. An article on small-economy stock exchanges could benefit the encyclopedia and its readers, but this is not that article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiseday Financial Inc

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

Non-notable company. References are primary sources (press releases). Runmastery (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Runmastery (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Technology, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: References don't appear to be accessible at all: the URLs just link to home pages. The titles do appear to indicate press releases on the most part, coming from Cision, a public relations company.

Article is a bit promotional, but there is one legitimate source I could find, plus some routine coverage of it raising funding

Likely should be deleted, but doesn't have *no* sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be kept if there are any more of those (which is probably false, unfortunately) Mrfoogles (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SEO junk, and the original editor has all the signs of being a pay-for-player writing up articles in exchange for payment. Nate • (chatter) 16:54, 3 July 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 keep arguments do not have policy behind them making this not as close as it appears Star Mississippi 16:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty Blaq

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

Upcoming comedian not notable for a page. References from unreliable sources and mostly trivial mentions Runmastery (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Runmastery (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming?? Nah, he's a blown stand up comedian in Nigeria 75DD (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Nasty Blaq is a well-known and accomplished comedian in Nigeria, but I still believe the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. While he has a significant following in Nigeria, the reliable sources required to establish notability are lacking. 2RDD (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This article is worth keeping, but the sourcing needs to be improved. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A lot of coverage seems to show this is a notable Nigerian celebrity (see for example https://www.pulse.ng/entertainment/celebrities/comedian-nasty-blaq-bags-ambassadorial-deal-with-dubai-based-fashion-line/rxffl59) and that the subject meets the requirement for a page; deletion does not seem necessary but trimming does. I am not sure the mention of the cars he owns is of extreme interest, for instance, but maybe I'm wrong. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm concerned that this article doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO as there is limited coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I think it's important to prioritize notability and ensure that our articles meet Wikipedia's standards. — talk 7:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 09:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He has worked with worked so many famous brands, few are Kubanah Whiskey Unveils Nastyblaq As Brand Ambassador, Cardtonic signs Mega Influencer, comedy star Nasty Blaq as their latest Brand Ambassador and so many more but I intended not to put it in the article because it will sound promotional

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Censorship in Turkey. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Tema

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

Non-notable YouTuber Runmastery (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bibliographies, and Webcomics. Runmastery (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Tema is a well-known YouTuber and writer in Turkey. She has been featured on all major news channels and websites such as TRT. See the references in the article. Kerim Demirkaynak (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Per the other commenters, like Kerim Demirkaynak, I'd vote weak keep in this discussion and hope that the sourcing is improved. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)~~ Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Censorship in Turkey: This article was created after a recent controversy. I can't find much coverage of him in the news prior to that. There isn't anything that contributes to his wikinotability on Google Books as far as I can see. Current coverage appears to be largely of the arrest warrant, so if there should be a standalone article, it should be of the event rather than his biography, but I'm not sure about that as well. Unless an editor demonstrates its notability through WP:NEVENT, it may be considered routine news coverage. By the way, self-published and primary sources such as Twitter, Youtube, his books do not determine his notability and should probably be left out when merging. Aintabli (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge: Coverage is significant but there is not that much of it. Seems likely there will not be much lasting coverage, and the event would probably benefit from context. The Censorship in Turkey article is very long already but if it has to be split it can be (and hopefully will be). Mrfoogles (talk) 07:22, 26 June 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. czar 05:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qiu Shi Science and Technology Prize

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

Article from 2012 tagged for speedy deletion 12 years later as unambiguous advertising (criterion G11). The article does contain some promotional language (e.g. "The Qiu Shi Foundation was named after the famous Qiu Shi Academy" and "Cha was best known for his industrial prowess, building a multinational textile conglomerate.") but this is mostly a stub article on a Chinese research prize where there are some examples of the awards being newsworthy, see e.g. [42]. However, while the awards have made it into some news articles, I am unable to determine the independence or reliability of these sources, and none of them are cited in the current article. The sources I have found are also much more about the person receiving the award than the award itself. While the promotional language is not severe enough for it to warrant a speedy deletion, I am bringing it to AFD and recommending delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and China. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Shen, Alice (2018-09-17). "Science prizes put technological innovation at the heart of China's progress. Prestigious Hong Kong science foundation rewards the brightest and the best". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "A chemist from mainland China has won a major Hong Kong science prize for his leading global research in the field of bio-inspired nano-materials, highlighting China’s pledge to become an innovation hub in its own right. Jiang Lei received a grant of one million yuan (US$150,000) as winner of the Qiu Shi outstanding scientist award at a ceremony on Saturday night at the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei, Anhui province. ... The prestigious Qiu Shi annual awards – qiu shi means “quest for truth” – was established by the late Hong Kong industrialist and philanthropist Cha Chi-ming, father of Payson Cha Mou-sing, in 1994 and features Nobel laureate Yang Zhenning on its judging panel. Previous Qiu Shi Award winners include Tu Youyou, who went on to receive the Nobel Prize in medicine for the discovery of artemisinin, saving millions of lives from malaria; Pan Jianwei, who later led the launch of the world’s first quantum satellite; and Zhang Yitang, who proved a theorem that had eluded mathematicians for more than a century. This year, in addition to the main prize, 12 outstanding young scientists were each awarded a US$90,000 grant, over three years, in recognition of their returning to China, with all their scientific potential, after overseas education or employment. ... This year, the number of recipients of the outstanding young scientist prize grew from 10 to 12, in line with the foundation’s aim of luring more talent back to China."
2. "People's Daily article". People's Daily. 2005. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "“求是杰出科学家奖”由香港求是科技基金会的设,这一基金会由查济民及其家族于 1994 年捐资 2000 万美元设立表基金会奖项其后每年评选颁发次,致力于奖励科技领域有成就的中国科技人才,努力推动国家科技进步,已累计奖励了包括“两弹元助"和"神舟五号功臣在内的数百位杰出科学家和 35 岁的潘建伟教授在量子信息论和量子基本问题等世界学术前沿领域取得的一系列开创性成果,"
  From Google Translate: "The "Qiushi Outstanding Scientist Award" was established by the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation, which was established by Cha Jimin and his family in 1994 with a donation of US$20 million. Chinese scientific and technological talents who have made achievements in the field of science and technology have worked hard to promote national scientific and technological progress, and have accumulated awards to hundreds of outstanding scientists including the "Two Bomb Yuanzhu" and "Shenzhou 5 Heroes" and 35-year-old Professor Pan Jianwei for his research in quantum information theory and A series of pioneering achievements in the world's academic frontier fields such as fundamental quantum problems, ..."
3. Li, Lixia 李丽霞 (2019-09-22). Zhang, Yu 张玉 (ed.). "杨振宁获求是终身成就奖系史上第二位该奖得主" [Yang Zhenning wins Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Award, becoming the second winner in history]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "据悉，香港求是科技基金会1994年由著名爱国实业家査济民先生创立，秉持“雪中送炭”的宗旨，积极坚持和倡导“科学精神，人文情怀”的核心理念。1994至2019年，共有358位在数学、物理、化学、生物医学及工程信息等科技领域中有杰出成就的中国科学家获得基金会奖励。其中“求是终身成就奖”2位，“杰出科学家奖”31位、“杰出青年学者奖”192位、以及 “杰出科技成就集体奖” 133位（涉及16个重大科研项目，如青蒿素、人工合成牛胰岛素、塔里木盆地沙漠治理、铁基超导、神舟飞船等）。"
  From Google Translate: "It is reported that the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation was founded in 1994 by Mr. Cha Jimin, a famous patriotic industrialist. Adhering to the purpose of "providing timely assistance", it actively adheres to and advocates the core concept of "scientific spirit and humanistic feelings". From 1994 to 2019, a total of 358 Chinese scientists with outstanding achievements in science and technology fields such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, biomedicine and engineering information received awards from the foundation. Among them, there are 2 "Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Awards", 31 "Outstanding Scientist Awards", 192 "Outstanding Young Scholar Awards", and 133 "Outstanding Scientific and Technological Achievement Group Awards" (involving 16 major scientific research projects, such as artemisinin, synthetic bovine insulin, Tarim Basin desert control, iron-based superconductors, Shenzhou spacecraft, etc.)."
4. Zhu, Lixin (2015-09-20). "TCM doctor receives 'grand award' from Qiu Shi foundation". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "An 83-year-old Traditional Chinese Medicine doctor was among recipients of Hong Kong Qiu Shi Science and Technologies Foundation awards on Saturday. ... The Outstanding Scientific Research Team Award went to the Hepatitis E Vaccine team from Xiamen University，which invented the world’s first recombinant Hepatitis E Vaccine and made it available on the market in 2012. Ten other young scientists from seven universities and institutes received the Outstanding Young Scholar Award."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Qiu Shi Awards (simplified Chinese: 求是奖; traditional Chinese: 求是獎) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cunard did a very thorough search of sources. However, I found the nominator's main concern is that many of the sources are about the award ceremonies and awardees, rather than the award itself. While the South China Morning Post and People's Daily sources provided by Cunard are indeed about the award itself, The Beijing News and China Daily sources seem to fall under what the nominator would consider as non-independent sources. Therefore, I found two additional sources from Guang Ming Daily[43] and Ta Kung Pao[44] which documented the founding of the award, and I believe these should be adequate to address the nominator's concerns. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 08:58, 26 June 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) 14:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another easy @Cunard sourcing win, truly one of the GOATs of AfD. BrigadierG (talk) 15:15, 3 July 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. Second time I've closed an AFD on this article as "Delete". Let's not see another immediate recreation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notcoin

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 11#Notcoin, as the redirect target of Telegram (software), or any other target, was not found suitable. The page had been moved to draftspace on the day of its creation, as not ready for mainspace, however the creator had rejected the draftification. Jay 💬 06:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Games, and Software. Jay 💬 06:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Telegram: Significant coverage in BBC Pidgin and likely in the non-English articles as well (which I cannot read). Telegram article is long but could easily accommodate a short section on the game, which seems to have drawn attention. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to The Open Network (TON) would be more suitable in this case. - Anwon (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what is this? A game? A crypto-coin? A ponzi scheme? The sources don't say (and are largely about a related game called "Hamster Combat"), which demonstrates that there is insufficiently substantial coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I am opposed to a redirect to Telegram (software). If this content were on the Telegram article, I would remove it as WP:UNDUE and inherently somewhat promotional. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Persian article has همستر کامبت (Hamster Kombat) as the article subject: https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%87%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1_%DA%A9%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%AA Hamster Kombat and Notcoin seem like they are separate crypto games on Telegram? From machine translation and the images, the sources cited in the English article, like this one, appear to be about Hamster Kombat or crypto games in general, not about Notcoin. For a redirect, Telegram (software) seems an appropriate target. I'll abstain from voting, though, because I can't read most of the coverage on these games. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In the first AFD discussion, the closure was Delete but this discussion is bringing up more possible outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Open Network (TON). The Persian-language sources seem to be primarily about a hamster-related game of a different name that employs the Notcoin/"Natcoin" token. But I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV for Notcoin itself, at least not in sources that clear WP:NCRYPTO; however, WP:TRADES sources ([45], [46]) do show evidence that it's a major game/token on TON, so as an AtD that redirect makes sense. Like Walsh90210 I would oppose a redirect to Telegram. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet more unimportant cryptotrash. Nate • (chatter) 16:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. fails general notability guideline. subject of article is also unfocused. ltb d l (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – what an unholy mess. Plainly not remotely suitably sourced, and the article content wanders all over the place. Draftify if the user wants, but since they don't seem to want that, deletion is the right option. Possibly salt so they don't do it again. Or block them, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:08, 10 July 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. There is a consensus here to Delete this article. Article subject doesn't have the necessary notability for their own article. It might be TOOSOON. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deepankaj Poonia

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

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO, with only minor roles so far and no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Declined five times at draft for same reasons, and speedied twice as spam, for which another single-purpose account was eventually indefinitely blocked for advertising. Wikishovel (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Rajasthan. Wikishovel (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what's your problem ? , every time you nominate for deletion, are you taking any personal revenge or you didn't get paid for this article creation. 103.206.172.223 (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please log back in. Wikishovel (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so what's your problem ? if he did minor roles, at least he is doing his job, and trying very hard to make his name , people like you don 't support it, you just keep deleting , because you didn't get paid for that and getting jealous , you just support nepotism

indefinitely blocked for advertising - Because some fellow people created his articles so that so people like you delete it later as spam.

this time gave mentioned valid references , and it should be not deleted . 103.206.172.223 (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t pass unnecessary comments, be polite and follow Wikipedia guidelines Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided valid references. It doesn’t matter if someone did small roles or big , we need to appreciate it . And help to create articles for them . Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia isn't intended to document every actor who's ever appeared in a film: that's the job of film databases like IMDB. There are notability guidelines and policies for Wikipedia, which in this case include notability of actors, notability of people and the general notability guidelines. Articles on Wikipedia aren't meant to help someone or something become notable, but rather to document people and things which are already notable. Wikishovel (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not enough mentions in RS (hardly any), not meeting notability. I can only find what's used in the article, none of which prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The Google Knowledge Panel, IMDb links, and movie articles are enough for it as its first project. Also, it was not a minor role, but a significant one, showing a guest role. It is better not to delete the article and to support it." Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If there is a mistake in the article, it's better to correct it rather than appeal to delete it. It doesn’t make any sense." Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mistake, but I can't correct it as using IMdB is not a reliable source, the Google knowledge panel is not a reliable source and the movie links are trivial coverage. We require stories about the person, not a laundry list of things they've done. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For stories news articles wants huge amounts of money to publish, and there is no connection with them , if you have any you can give and ask to publish stories or I can connect you with the actor, you can ask the details and create an article.

there nothing I can do it now , if you want to delete article then delete , I’m done with this , this so frustrating, gonna delete my account too , not gonna use Wikipedia though

good bye Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ole Aale. That seems to be the first movie he was in, so it would make sense, even though the article is very weak. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about a person's first movie serve as important historical records of their career's beginning. They provide context and background that can be valuable for understanding their professional development and trajectory over time. Deleting these articles would erase critical early documentation of their work and contributions, which could be of interest to fans, researchers, and industry professionals. Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It's better to delete the previous articles but not this one. If the article is very weak, try to help and make it stronger." Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and thus fails WP:NACTOR, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. Let me also comment on someone's statement above that "if the article is very weak, try to help and make it stronger." Without significant coverage in reliable sources, there is nothing to make stronger, and any attempts to do so would still fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a platform for documenting and promoting individuals who have not yet met the notability criteria. Zingarese talk · contribs (please mention me on reply; thanks!) 03:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Don’t delete @Oaktree b@TheChronikler7@Wikishovel@Zingarese
He is not only an actor; he is a model too. Check his work; he has collaborated with many brands. Attached are a few links to his work. This article is not to be deleted.

According to Wikipedia guidelines, a person may be considered notable if they have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. He has achieved this through his work in film and his extensive modeling projects with various brands.

This version includes the guideline reference and provides context for his notability.

https://cooldown.co.in/products/72-orange-mens-sando

https://watch.plex.tv/person/deepankaj-poonia

https://www.filmiforest.com/celebs/deepankaj-poonia/biography.html

https://www.lavanguardia.com/peliculas-series/personas/deepankaj-poonia-4426303

https://www.gadgets360.com/entertainment/ole-aale-movie-123077

https://rangmarathi.com/tag/ole-aale-movie-booking/

Deepankaj Poonia

https://g.co/kgs/nc1R26p Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet WP:NACTOR. TheChronikler7 (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Dont delete- here are few articles about him.

https://starsgazette.com/news/deepankaj-poonia-a-rising-star-shines-bright-in-modeling-and-films/0455978

https://www.livenewsviews.com/deepankaj-poonia-a-rising-star-shines-bright-in-modeling-and-films-81782431190430385 https://malaysiantalks.com/news/deepankaj-poonia-a-rising-star-shines-bright-in-modeling-and-films/0455978

https://thewitnessdaily.com/news/deepankaj-poonia-a-rising-star-shines-bright-in-modeling-and-films/0455978

https://suratkhabar.com/news/deepankaj-poonia-a-rising-star-shines-bright-in-modeling-and-films/0455978

https://starjournals.com/news/deepankaj-poonia-a-rising-star-shines-bright-in-modeling-and-films/0455978

https://buzzingasia.com/news/deepankaj-poonia-a-rising-star-shines-bright-in-modeling-and-films/0455978

https://dailyinsidescoop.com/news/deepankaj-poonia-a-rising-star-shines-bright-in-modeling-and-films/0455978

https://enterhollywood.com/news/deepankaj-poonia-a-rising-star-shines-bright-in-modeling-and-films/0455978 Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikishovel@Oaktree b@TheChronikler7@Zingarese@ kindly close the discussion and remove deletion from article. as now given sources. Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all the same article multiple times and it's a press release, which is not a reliable source. None of these are helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and obvious UPE target.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:49, 25 June 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!} 05:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equatorial College School

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found to consider against the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uganda. JMWt (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not seeing any notability here either. Only thing remotely notable is the other places it has ties with. Procyon117 (talk) 14:15, 19 June 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!} 00:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toyen (band)

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

Does not meet WP:BAND criteria. The article is also long-time unsourced and has other issues. FromCzech (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The Czech Wikipedia article also is unsourced and lacks any reliable secondary source, which might help otherwise. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:21, 23 June 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 Warwick, Rhode Island. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Police Department

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. WP:FAILN - organizations local to a city, town or country maybe added to respective article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwick,_Rhode_Island Wikilover3509 (talk) 6:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redir to the city government, as the only non-routine information has to do with it being featured on a reality show, a matte which can be disposed of in a sentence. Mangoe (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the applicable city government, as Mangoe suggests.71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mangoe; ping me if sources are found. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:56, 24 June 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 Ultraman (1966 TV series)#Monsters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jirahs

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

Fails notability guidelines. Tried to do a WP:BEFORE search, but found zero sigcov. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ultraman or a to-be-created villains/characters article where individually NN fictional elements like this can be curated appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the appropropriate page, specifically Ultraman as proposed by Jclemens in an above comment.71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:ATD and to achieve consensus. This doesn't have WP:SIGCOV but it can be summarized at the main topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ultraman (1966 TV series)#Monsters: This monster has not received any significant coverage in a single reliable source. The closest would be a brief article on a purchasable statuette of the character. Much of the content of this article is discussed in the article on the show that the character first appeared in. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ultraman (1966 TV series)#Monsters - This monster is actually already covered in a couple sentences in that section already, and there are no sources to indicate that this monster is particularly notable enough to warrant more than those couple of sentences. Rorshacma (talk) 01:07, 26 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Curzon Price

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES are primary, including biographies and the like by related parties. No particular claim to notability is textually clear. JFHJr (㊟) 03:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Politics, Economics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per The Telegraph (well beyond the Wikipedia:One hundred words suggestion for SIGCOV) and because we usually set the bar a little lower for sources that we might cite. (BTW, JFHJr, it's not necessary for an article to have a "particular claim to notability". Were you thinking about Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, which is a WP:CSD thing?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No particular claim to notability is in regards to finding a more specific criterion than GNG. Where are the multiple independent (unrelated to the subject) reliable sources providing significant coverage? JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is the one Telegraph article, but everything else that I find is non-independent. I find only a few academic articles and the citation counts are low (barely double and often single digits, one at 166 cites). Lamona (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:42, 19 June 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× ☎ 23:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Potter

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

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he was a county executive, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- it's a role where he would have to pass the second clause of NPOL ("local political figures"), where the inclusion test hinges on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage about him that can be shown to support an article with. But except for one obituary upon his death, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no other reliable or GNG-building sources shown.
As his career was several decades ago and thus might not Google well, I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Arlington-area media coverage from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Virginia. Bearcat (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Try https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ > https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/27/ > his name in Maryland newspapers. The Frederick News-Post seems to carry the most coverage, with hundreds of articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- based on his position as a county executive, I expected to give a delete opinion as that's the normal outcome for such roles. But a staff-written obituary in the Washington Post suggests he was considered notable beyond the typical holder of such a position. The other details (Plaza named for him) wouldn't generally be enough on their own, but together with the obit pushes above the bar for GNG keep. (would not pass WP:PROF on its own). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington County is literally suburbs of Washington DC, so the existence of a staff-written obituary in the Washington Post just suggests the exact same purely local notability that any county executive in any county could always show, and is not in and of itself enough to singlehandedly determine that he's more notable than the norm. So we would need to see a hell of a lot more than just that alone. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I thought of that, but the Washington Post is not a local newspaper in the same way that say that Arlington Sun-Gazzette is. It was written by their same obituary staff as their other obituaries. I think that a look at their current obituaries will show that obituaries in the paper are dedicated to people whom they believe have more than local notability. I don't see, for instance, other local officials or former high school sports coaches there, except in the paid death notices section. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete I live in the county, and I only recognized the name on a "that rings a bell" basis. He lived, he was county executive, he did county exec things, he retired, and he died. I just don't see the notability; I'm sure he was competent (or else he surely would have an article!) but the language of his term is that of press releases, which argues he did nothing that attracted greater notice. Mangoe (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that the Post and the Times are the de facto local papers of the area given the demise of almost all the county level papers, but in any case they would report such an obituary as a matter of record. Mangoe (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Those obituaries are not sufficient to establish encyclopedia value. Otherwise, every single person who ever had an obituary in those would get their own Wikipedia article. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doczilla. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:11, 26 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lybrate

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to find a news which is not a PR. Funding, launches, and announcements are all they have. Even the creator came only to create the page. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Internet, Software, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. also look like an advertisement! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One source that doesn't look like an ad: this one. So at least one source of significant coverage. The other articles could have been paid for, but might not all be: even if they sound ad-like, they could still be reliable coverage: we don't know. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Main problem in this AFD is that it is unclear whether the articles are paid or not. If they are not, obviously Keep because it has an enormous amount of coverage, but if (given what the Reliable Sources Noticeboard says about unreported sponsored business content in Indian news) we just use the non-Indian business news sources, I think it likely has to be a Delete because I don't see many of those. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mrfoogles You are again sharing the funding related link from the source whose reliability is questionable as per WP:RSPSS I can't see any research done by a journalist. Lordofhunter (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion can't be closed as a Soft Deletion so we really need to hear from more editors here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is significant coverage of the company that passes WP:GNG. The suggestion that some of the sources are likely to be paid for or sponsored posts without clear evidence of such should not be the reason to delete. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just barely. Despite 38 references, almost all of them would be excluded for WP:NCORP purposes under WP:ORGTRIV, WP:NEWSORGINDIA or WP:TRIVIALMENTION. However, this Forbes India staff-authored print magazine story, this cover story in The Week, and this Financial Express story clear the bar for WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:46, 3 July 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liberales Institut

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. It hasn't had sources since at least 2012 if ever. JFHJr (㊟) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Organizations, Politics, and Switzerland. JFHJr (㊟) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start by ignoring the WP:ITSUNREFERENCED claim by the nom, since that's one of the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This is a difficult subject to research because this report indicates that there are two organizations with the same name and similar views, which makes finding sources more challenging than usual. Also, it's Swiss, so you really need to search under four different names (German, French, Italian, and English). This is time-consuming, so it's not surprising that people might do a cursory search, find nothing, and give up.
I think it might make more sense to treat this subject like a scholarly publisher than like a business or a social club. I would particularly consider WP:NMEDIA's "frequently cited by other reliable sources" as a possibility. As for sources, this Swiss-German article looks potentially useful, and I notice that the article at the French Wikipedia cites five sources (none of which are the org's website). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the five is plainly the subject's website in the French WP. I'll do my best to look into the others. I'm open to withdrawing my nomination if it's clear to me or to a consensus that the coverage is in-depth. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I looked at the sources in the French article [47] is an interview with a minimal description of the institute, this is about a prize given out/details on the winner [48]. The German ones I'm unable to translate as they block access while at work, might have to review at home later... Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked on the sources that appear on the francophone wiki and they appear to be passing mention; the Wilhelm Röpke award appears in a secondary source, but itself does not appear to be a major award. But quality wise, that source may come closest to in-depth coverage as far as fr wiki goes. JFHJr (㊟) 21:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of German sources that go beyond passing mention. Will work on article. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weka keep: Probably enough for a basic article about this institute, in addition to the sources I explained above, [49] describes their work, but it's a few lines only. This book talks about them [50] Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything approaching SIRS here -- a couple sentences parroting the org's self-description in one book is not enough to count towards NORG, let alone meet it. The main de.wp news source is a report on an event/speaker that the institute helped organize at a university, its only coverage is a one-sentence description and some info relayed by its director, so it handily fails SIRS. The other de.wp source is non-independent as it was written by a disgruntled former member. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, thank you very much. A well-explained characterization of the German sources was very much needed and helpful. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very easy to find new sources on this one. Will get started, there's plenty of German and English-language secondary sources which are admissible as evidence of notability as per Wikipedia policy language is not a factor in whether a source can be used.Wickster12345 (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are academic secondary sources where the Liberales Institut and its work have been profiled and NOT just mentioned in passing. I have included some and will continue adding. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The texts you added are a primary research paper, the findings of which are not DUE and whose only secondary coverage of LI is Outside the UK, the next oldest organization included in our analyses is Liberales Institut (LI), established in Zurich, Switzerland in 1979. A declared follower of the Austrian School of Economics,, which is far from SIGCOV; and findings from a conference co-organized by LI (not independent). Neither of these counts toward SIRS. JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree on both points.

1.There is no evidence the findings from the conference co-organized by LI (which is not the publisher either) were themselves made by someone with LI affiliation him or herself. Whether there is evidence showing this author's affiliation with Liberales Institut is what matters here. There is no such evidence. One can go to and report on a conference without being a member of the organization or even supporting the organization in any concrete way. If you can provide evidence sufficiently tying LI to the author, then I take it back.

2. The secondary coverage of LI goes way beyond the line you just reproduced. The entire article can be argued to be secondary coverage because it is filled with analysis, graphs and comparisons of LI with other Euro think tanks, without explicitly invoking the name "Liberales Institut". The fact that LI is notable enough to be analyzed and scrutinized in-depth in an independent secondary source (which happens to be an academic source) means it is notable. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:JoelleJay, one more thing, in dismissing the one current German-language source with the "disgruntled ex-member" (I would dispute this characterization by the way) as not independent, in my my opinion we are committing a textbook version of the mistake of "Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and they may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic.'" from Wikipedia:Independent_sources. Liberales Institut is not a company and Kohler is not gaining in any way from publishing criticism, in and of itself, outside of, maybe a sense of being right. I recall reading the essay and it never seemed like Kohler wanted to hurt LI's financial interests or existence, it seems more like he became ideologically disenchanted and explained why, which is fair game and notable coverage if one of Switzerland's main magazines picks it up. ''Wickster12345 (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kohler is not independent of the institute, therefore what he says about it does not contribute to notability. It doesn't matter what type of relationship he had with it or how neutral his coverage of it is; the attention he gives to LI does not demonstrate that it is a subject of significant interest to people with zero affiliation with the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my reading of Wikipedia policy that I just quoted and explained for you: Yes the type of relationship the author of a source has with the subject matters very much because the question is about Kohler's "personal gain" by discussing the subject, which you have not, with sufficient evidence explained how has any personal skin in the game. He has no personal vested interest just by virtue of being an ex-members. If he were Head of a rival institute then, I think you may have a point. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, "personal gain" is not the only reason we require sources to be completely independent of the topics they cover in order to count towards notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.

there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.
Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received.
Kohler is clearly affiliated, his article is therefore clearly not evidence of attention that is uninfluenced by anyone with a connection to LI. Independence is also not determined by whether some editor thinks a source would profit from covering a topic, it is established by the actual relationship an author has with the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m happy to go into why I feel the policy you reproduced in fact strengthens the argument for inclusion, but I feel it is moot with the addition of the NZZ article, please see my statement below by this is in fact an independent source. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's one, what are the others (again independent and unrelated) that provide in-depth coverage? It's not just one, it's multiple required. JFHJr (㊟) 04:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are three independent in-depth secondary sources as of now (four arguably if one includes the article by Kohler). Wickster12345 (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this. you mentioned: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." The fact is Kohler, as one of the unsigned posters I believe hinted at (although I may have misunderstood their overall point), was no longer affiliated with LI at the time of writing his article. There is no temporal definition of "affiliation" with a subject per WP so we should not assume to impose a supposed 'common-sense' temporal understanding (you're de facto saying Kohler is forever affiliated just because he once was a leading member of LI) of affiliation in this case. I believe in lieu of a WP definition of how much time needs to have been elapsed for Kohler not be considered affiliated with LI we should probably assume him unaffiliated making the source count because it was published otherwise independently. That's like saying Obama commenting on a little-known policy of Trump's in an independent policy journal cannot count towards that policy having received independent, significant coverage, because Obama had the same job as Trump and was in some of the same circles. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. The sourcing on this page is passable and enough to justify it, but it should surely be improved.71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem to me looks like no unrelated source or sources in combination satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH for depth or WP:GNG for significance. To get there, editors appear to rely on publications by parties that are not unrelated. A glance at the current number of sources does not make the problem quite apparent. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found another article in the major independent Swiss daily newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (a different newspaper than the source covering the ex-member Kohler's view) covering the Liberales Institut in-depth (from 2004). I used the NZZ archive tool (- Archiv (nzz.ch)). It's now cited in the article. I think at this point, at the very least, notability and independence have been established. I actually disagree with you that all the other already existing sources fail the two policies you mention, but I think that disagreement is moot now. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That source is an interview with the LI's Robert Nef, it is listed here on his website's list of his publications and the full transcript is here. It is not an independent or secondary source and does not count toward NCORP/GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JoelleJay's characterization here. And I hope the closing admin takes into account the better reasoned conclusions over simply conclusory characterizations. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I almost expected you might go to his website (not a criticism just an observation) as opposed to accessing the NZZ archive. If you read the ORIGINAL NZZ article there is a section in the same page which gives an in-depth history of the LI. So I think you’re mistaken and selectively focusing on the part of the NZZ page that you can access through Nef’s website alone. I’m happy to send you the original if you want. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, give me a look at it. My email link should be open. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I never got a look at the alleged difference. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your email link. I'm still happy to send to you Wickster12345 (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just figured out the email link system :) . One cannot send attachments via email link I believe? Correct me if I'm wrong. The article is on the NZZ archives which you can alternately subscribe to. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the closing admin defers to the Wikipedia policy and codified notion of consensus which, so far, as I write this, is NOT clearly in favor deletion, cheers Wickster12345 (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, The criteria are met, 2 good secondary sources. Subject has press attention and independent media (never heard of these Swiss (?) newspapers but are kinda independent and authoritative) coverage. I've been studying lots of deletion discussions on here and I finally got the confidence to get involved in one :)...Based on other discussions I've seen on here interviews with people affiliated with a subject doesn't disqualify the source for showing notability if the interviews are published in independent sources and are not promotional. Re the Kohler source: I dont see anywhere on Wikipedia anybody defining how long ago an affiliation has to be for a source to gain independt status so by default im gonna say lack of formal affiliation at time of publication is enough. Peace folkss 2601:640:8A02:3C40:D996:AFF9:6B1F:E0FA (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually 3-4 qualifying sources, although I tendentially agree with your arguments. As a side note: I do not agree that studying deletion discussions as precedent is the best way to learn, by the way, as the dynamic of every deletion discussion is different. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This "institute" seems to go by a variety of different names, most notably the various German conjugations of "Liberales Institut" (liberalem, liberale, liberalen), as well as the more specific "Liberalen Institut in Zürich". I found this highly critical article [51], which is far beyond what's needed for SIGCOV. I'm certain this is the same institute: It was founded in Zurich in 1979 and has a strong "liberal" bent (btw, in Switzerland "liberal" is equivalent to "right-wing" or "conservative" in other countries).

Searching for NZZ articles in PressReader, I've found an article covering a "study" they produced that criticizes Swiss agricultural import policy and this article titled "Kein Wettbewerb beim Geld" that I can't find elsewhere online about an event they held in 2010. There are also reviews of several books they have published, e.g. [52][53][54][55], the last of which briefly comments on the institute itself. The NZZ is a liberal newspaper, but is highly reputable, so I don't think that bias should be considered disqualifying here. There are also brief mentions in SRF that two notable people are members [56][57], and PressReader shows three hits in Le Temps which I cannot view without a subscription. Toadspike [Talk] 17:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A search at E-newspaperarchives.ch [58] returns 101 results, some of which are advertisements or false positives, but many are clearly articles about this subject. The paywalls are a pain, though. Toadspike [Talk] 17:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toadspike. GNG seems met. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG with multiple sources and multiple interwikis. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:26, 27 June 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. As the delete !voters note, this lacks valid, reliable evidence of sustained notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Liberal

AfDs for this article:

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

Years ago this term was circulated once on social media by right wing trolls, but there is no significant coverage of this non-notable term in any reliable sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Internet celebrity. Although, that seems to have a potential move afoot to rename it "Influencer". IMO, "Influencer" and "Adarsh Liberal" have a lot in common - they're both flash terminology of the moment, used to define any number of personalities. — Maile (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Popular culture, Internet, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Article cleary fails WP:GNG. Written in POV and fan voice.च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Message 12:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't merge, the term is too area specific to be known outside the area. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The term gained some traction online [59] and [60]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable term from social media and memes. WP:DICDEF. RangersRus (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term has gained traction in the mainstream media and passes WP:GNG News Laundry ,Hindustan Times ,India Today ,BBC ,The News Minute,The Indian Express,Deccan Herald,The Economic Times ,NDTV ,Scroll ,News18.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently, all of the sources listed above come from the same time when the meme was trending. No evidence of lasting coverage. CharlesWain (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Pharaoh of the Wizards, passes WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out a couple of sources that ensure the subject meets WP:GNG? Ratnahastin (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sustaining coverage, just another Twitter war only cared about by a small group of people who need to go outside. Nate • (chatter) 20:37, 19 June 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. ✗plicit 14:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanghamitta Balika Vidyalaya

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Buddhism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 26 June 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'm choosing to close this discussion as the nominator is a sock and the only participant here after a relisting is very new and has made only 20 edits. Any editor in good standing can refile a new AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ursula Münzner-Linder

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

Delete: Fails NMUSICIAN and reliable sourcing to confirm notability. Tkaras1 (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Only reliable and accessible sourcing I could find by Google search was this link, which alone does not seem sufficient. Her name is apparently not even spelled correctly! Tkaras1 (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article needs a significant update, Ursula it seems that he died in 2011, but even an update I don't think will be able to keep the article.--Mooon FR (talk) 20:54, 19 June 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. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ksolves India Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are largely earning reports and announcements, considered trivial coverage. Others fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing more than a business directory listing. This might even qualify for A7 speedy deletion: there is nothing currently in the article that even remotely suggests notability, just that it exists, it has products (but none are described), it works with the same tech products that every tech company works with, and it's publicly traded and reports earnings. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Ciudatul (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:LISTED guidelines, a publicly traded company is deemed notable if it has received independent press coverage and is cited in analyst reports. The article under discussion meets these criteria by including three credible analyst reports [61], [62], [63] and sufficient independent press coverage.Artyomolga (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources meets the criteria of WP:NCORP. Sources also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because of no independent subject matter. RangersRus (talk) 14:06, 20 June 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!} 02:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Murphy (Scottish footballer)

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

The three Daily Record pieces referenced are all interview-heavy with very little WP:SIGCOV of the subject and my searches do not yield much else. Subject fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: concur with @JTtheOG. It's too soon. Tkaras1 (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of independent, reliable sources raises concerns about the subject meeting WP:GNG. Waqar💬 19:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but if this person becomes notable, it should be titled as Jess Murphy (footballer) as no other titles with that name and profession exist yet. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:58, 21 June 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 Timeline of the Syrian civil war. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012 Idlib bombings

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

A news story of no encyclopedic significance. No retrospective coverage or major societal effects to meet WP:NEVENT. Too short to warrant a merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, and Syria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Timeline of the Syrian Civil War per WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. No WP:SIGCOV either. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I agree with @Aydoh8's suggestion. Article was created just a few days after the event it covers happened, and only includes one source and is a WP:STUB. This article doesn't include any information that would be negatively affected by merging. Mjks28 (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Tiny event in a big war. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is a rough consensus here to Keep this article. The deletion rationale doesn't mention any factors that can't be improved through careful editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten

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

WP:BLP issues - there are too many dubious and poorly-sourced claims in this article for an article about a living person. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bilateral relations, China, France, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tracked down a number of claims - service in Chinese parliament, involvement in Iran talks, chairing the East-West strategic studies institute, which are sourced and seem to raise at least a colorable claim of notability. The claim to serve in parliament is supported by The Diplomat article, but is probably misstated as it seems he took part in a Jilin Municipal level CPPCC meeting[64])] as opposed to service at the national level. Other claims like buying the palace, and testimony before parliament, are not very notable but are verifiable. And some other facts, like his history as a diplomat, are not well sourced although I haven't done searches to see if they are hoaxes. Why is this not a situation where the article can be edited rather than deleted? Oblivy (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are a number of issues with this article that have concerned me for some time. They are most obvious when you consider it in conjunction with a group of related articles: Institute for East West Strategic Studies, Pfetten's foundation; Apethorpe Palace, his home and the foundation's office; Owen Matthews, the foundation's vice-chair; and the International Foxhound Association - currently also up for deletion - which Pfetten chairs.

Promotional content - the content these editors add tends to be highly promotional. Counter wise, repeated efforts are made to remove anything they consider "negative";

Authorship and COI - User talk:Prinkipo71 is the major contributor to this article, and its originator. They are also the major contributor to, and originator of, the Matthews article. User talk:Baronpfetten has also edited this. Prinkipo71 is also the second major contributor to the Apethorpe Palace article. They have described themselves as "Apethope's archivist and historian",[65]. The first contributor to the Institute article is an IP, the second, and its originator, is User talk:Baronpfetten, a user name which suggests an obvious COI. Baronpfetten is also the major contributor to, and the originator of, the International Foxhound Association article. Both Prinkipo71 and Baronpfetten are broadly single-purpose accounts, in that they only edit this group of articles. I think it highly likely there is a bunch of undeclared COI. It is also worth noting the contributions of User talk:StevenGui/User talk:GeorgeThuiller, to these articles and to that on Tactical nuclear weapon, [66]. After an initial denial Gui acknowledged they were employed by the Chinese government, to which Pfetten has close links. Oddly, Thuiller - an editor with 11 edits - took it upon themselves to edit a comment made by Gui, on Gui's own Talkpage, to amend Gui's acknowledgement that they work "for" the Chinese Government, to suggest that they work "with" it, [67]. Apart from Gui, none of the other editors has made any Conflict of Interest declarations regarding these articles.

SPA/IP editing - this is very common to all of the above, and I strongly suspect Checkuser would find connections. See, as one example, these edits, [68] to the IFA deletion discussion by User:Tintin2004123 who joined two days ago, specifically to try to stop the deletion, the only edits they have ever made.

In short, I think these articles are a mess of promotional editing from editors/IPs, all certainly connected and all with undeclared COIs. I have previously flagged it with ARBs, but it has not been taken forward, as far as I am aware. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to my questions. I'm not sure this is something that falls within a deletion category, other than the catch-all not suitable tag (which is pretty weak sauce IMHO). OK, it's a coatrack, and it has assertions that are questionably supported by citations, and the language is promotional (although many biographies paint a positive picture of a person, particularly if they are not notorious for some bad thing). In my opinion, these content issues need to be worked out on article pages and talk pages, and not at AfD.

I'm also troubled that much of what you describe is based on suspicions of the editors, their conduct and their motives, rather than identifying notability issues with the article. AfD is not for conduct issues either. Surely if someone is being disruptive or displaying ownership behavior, there's a conduct guideline that can be invoked at ANI. Also, no policy says someone can't be an SPA, and AFAIK there's no policy saying you can't edit while under a COI (policy says "discouraged" and "should" regarding COI, disclosure is "must" for paid editing). Oblivy (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t doubt that you are procedurally right, and that AfD isn’t the best venue to address a lot of this. I would say that I have tried both the Talkpage discussion route, getting mostly silence or obfuscation; and the conduct reporting route, again getting silence. My concern is that what I am quite certain we have in these articles are editors writing about themselves/their interests, without being at all transparent as to their connections to the article subjects. For me, that fundamentally conflicts with our aim of being a reliable encyclopaedia, and does a grave disservice to our readers. KJP1 (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although the article has a section for Academic career, the subject seems to have published very few articles or books. I see little to no sign of WP:NPROF notability. I am skeptical of GNG. His house does appear to possibly be notable, and I suppose that redirection to a stub about the house would be an option. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be a way forward. I am very confident that Apethorpe Palace is notable, per Wikipedia:NBUILDING. It's a Grade I listed building, has a long and illustrious history, with notable owners/visitors, and it has been very extensively covered, in architectural publications, in historical journals and in the media. I'd certainly support a re-direct, which could also cover the Institute. KJP1 (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Leclair De Marco, Stéphanie (2007-10-01). "Jean-Christophe Iseux : Le mandarin de la Loire" [Jean-Christophe Iseux: The mandarin of the Loire]. Les Echos (in French). Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "A tout juste 40 ans, après une décennie passée en Chine, Jean-Christophe Iseux a décidé de revenir en France. Avec un projet en tête : faire de son château de la Loire un lieu de rencontre « personnel, élitiste et confidentiel, avec pas plus de 200 personnes ! » Sa cible ? Des leaders occidentaux et leurs homologues chinois et asiatiques. Ambitieux. Mais son excellente connaissance de la Chine et de ses gouvernants devrait lui permettre de réussir son projet. Son histoire d'amour avec l'empire du Milieu commence en 1996. Ingénieur géophysicien de formation, il oublie les sciences de la Terre pour celles de l'économie. Chercheur spécialisé dans la privatisation des entreprises d'Etat, passé par Oxford où, MBA en poche, il se concocte un remarquable carnet d'adresses, il devient le plus jeune représentant permanent aux Nations unies."
  From Google Translate: "At just 40 years old, after a decade spent in China, Jean-Christophe Iseux decided to return to France. With a project in mind: to make his Loire castle a “personal, elitist and confidential” meeting place, with no more than 200 people! » His target? Western leaders and their Chinese and Asian counterparts. Ambitious. But his excellent knowledge of China and its leaders should enable him to succeed in his project. His love affair with the Middle Kingdom began in 1996. A geophysicist engineer by training, he forgot Earth sciences for those of the economy. A researcher specializing in the privatisation of state enterprises, he went to Oxford where, with an MBA in hand, he built up a remarkable address book and became the youngest permanent representative to the United Nations."
2. Yu, Ying 余颖; Zhao, Xinyi 赵欣怡 (2021-09-22). Wu, Yidan 武一丹; Yu, Ying 余颖 (eds.). ""在英国重新发现中国：红色男爵的中国故事"讲座成功举办" ["Rediscovering China in the UK: The Red Baron's Chinese Story" Lecture Successfully Held]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "据介绍，易思男爵为法国贵族后裔，其家族与中国有深厚渊源。毕业于牛津大学坦普顿学院，曾任塞舌尔驻世贸组织代表、驻日内瓦裁军谈判会议代表、牛津大学管理学中心研究员、牛津大学赫特福德学院政策研究所中国研究中心主任等。从1997年起，易思男爵频繁赴华工作，先后担任清华大学访问学者、讲师、中国人民大学客座教授等，"
  From Google Translate: "According to reports, Baron Eise is a descendant of the French nobility, and his family has deep roots in China. He graduated from Templeton College, Oxford University, and has served as the Seychelles representative to the WTO, the representative to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, a researcher at the Oxford University Management Center, and the director of the China Research Center of the Hertford College Policy Institute, Oxford University. Since 1997, Baron Eise has frequently traveled to China for work, and has served as a visiting scholar and lecturer at Tsinghua University, and a visiting professor at Renmin University of China."
3. Kennedy, Maev (2016-06-13). "Red Baron's Jacobean Apethorpe Palace marks its rebirth with party". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "Just 18 months after Jean Christophe Iseux, Baron von Pfetten, spent £2.5m on a house with 48 bedrooms but no running water, he has decided to give a little party. ... Von Pfetten, a diplomat, Oxford academic and champion foxhound breeder, has been nicknamed “the Red Baron” for his years as an adviser to the Chinese government on everything from inward investment to Iran’s nuclear programme; the Chinese guests will include a government member and the head of an oil company."
4. Bruce, Rory Knight (2005-10-29). "Vive la différence! With full government support, hunting is thriving in France". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "I recently attended a weekend in Burgundy hosted by Jean Christophe Iseux, 37, a hunt master and special adviser to the Chinese government, who styles himself "The Red Baron". A fellow guest was Bob Hawke, the former trade unionist and Labour prime minister of Australia. ... said Iseux, referring to the pre-Revolutionary finery of dress that all hunts adopt. An aristocrat by birth, living in a family chateau near Macon, his great-uncle was a radical socialist MP for Burgundy. Oxford-educated Iseux believes that there is nothing incompatible about his love of la chasse and his work as a professor at the People's University of China in Beijing, an MP in the Chinese parliament and consultant to the Chinese government. ... Over the years, Iseux has hunted with an eclectic mixture of European ministers, aristocrats, writers, painters and even the female head of the French prison service."
5. Han, Baoyi (2019-06-14). "'Sweetener' strategy on trade dispute set to fail". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "... said Jean Christophe Iseux, a former European diplomat. ... Iseux came to China the first time in 1997 as a visiting professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing. He traveled all around China and did case studies of state-owned enterprise reform and issues relating to agriculture, rural areas, and rural residents in China. These issues became top priorities of China's reform and opening-up policy."
6. "Explainer: A glimpse of Chinese democracy through lens of 'two sessions'". China Daily. Xinhua News Agency. 2023-03-07. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "In 2001, a man with a pointy nose and a pair of sunken eyes arrived in northeast China's Changchun City. The man, with the name Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten, turned out to be the first ever non-Chinese member of the CPPCC. He was in Changchun not for travelling, but for attending its city-level CPPCC. "This was an amazing opportunity in 2001 to be invited by the then a mayor of Changchun to be a special invited member of CPPCC. But it was also a very important element of my learning curve on how the democratic system in China did work," said Pfetten, now president of the Institute for East-West Strategic Studies in Britain."
7. Hamid, Hamisah (2005-07-30). "'China wants Malaysia's main trade partner'". Business Times. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "Special adviser to central and local governments of China, Jean-Christophe Iseux, said ... Iseux, a Frenchman fluent in English and Mandarin, said many Malaysian investors in China have benefited from their investments. ... Iseux himself is the first and only Caucasian ever as Specially Invited Member of the Chinese Upper House of Parliament and has been ChangChun delegate of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) since December 2002. ... Iseux, who is currently an adviser on Foreign Economic Cooperation to the PCC central committee ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about the article's neutrality can be dealt with through editing as advised at Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems. Conflict of interest editing can be dealt with by following the advice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to handle conflicts of interest. I don't think deletion is the right approach. Cunard (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for failure to state a valid deletion rationale. "BLP Issues" does not represent such a rationale.

Nobody has said the article as it stands is inadequately sourced for WP:BASIC. On my review it does cite substantial coverage of this individual (although, as I point out above, there may be some verifiability issues and one of the claims to fame seems to be overstated). Once the additional sources identified by @Cunard are taken into consideration, a notability-based rationale is even harder to maintain.

@KJP1 has made a good argument that there are conduct issues related to the page. However, as they concede, this is not the place for such arguments. Oblivy (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if you see any BLP issues remove them, don't take it to AfD. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above, no reason for deletion on the typical deletion guidelines has been found.

However, on a separate note, I am curious if anyone has an actual (rather than potentially circular) source for his title being "Baron von Pfetten zu St. Mariakirchen". For instance, in a lot of press he is reported as Jean-Cristophe Iseux (no von Pfetten). I believe this may be his original name?

For instance, the Catholic Herald is very careful about his titling (not so for Lord Bamford), although the description for him seems perhaps self-sourced, here: https://catholicherald.co.uk/uk-catholic-leaders-of-today-2022-business-and-philanthropy/

And, the article on the noble family suggests the von Pfetten zu Mariakirchen line died out: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfetten

EPEAviator (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’Speedy Keep’’’sufficient reliable external sources from reputable news media (FT, WSJ, Guardian, Spiegel, etc.) to warrant retention of this page. No valid justification for deletion provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterJ111 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC) — PeterJ111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Keep: per Oblivy, WP:CSK#1. If there are BLP concerns about unsourced content or ambiguity of his title, those should be raised in the talk page instead of filing for deletion. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and I do not find this case to be necessary of WP:TNT. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:49, 24 June 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 since the last relisting so, like the first AFD, I'm closing this discussion as No consensus. Let's not see this article back for a third AFD for a year, how does that sound? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domaine Ylang Ylang

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to have enough coverage in references, so does not pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Mauritius. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before you jump the gun and delete it which appears to be your specislisation, I suggest you give this plant the time to grow and for it to be properly documented. Thank you. Stockbroker369 (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a food, drink place LOL. This is a famous Domaine in Mauritius, close to Mahebourg. Stockbroker369 (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'd maybe look at CORP notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources identified by Rosguill in the last AfD seem to be enough to keep the article (I'm not listing them here, they can be seen by clicking on the prior AfD in the box at the right). That editor's analysis is fine. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept draftification as an WP:ATD since appropriate references have not been added since the previous AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG, how about you add the sources yourself instead? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I? Articles do not need to get sent back to the beginning just because someone didn't follow the directions perfectly. It would probably take you less time to copy and paste those sources over than has already been spent in this AFD.

There isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources. Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. As a long-term project, if you want to be able to delete or hide articles because they don't contain at least one source, then I suggest that you propose that. There was some effort to extended WP:BLPPROD rules to all articles earlier this year. The consensus went the other way, but perhaps if you read that discussion, you'd be able to find a path forward towards your goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but I see no reason to change my course. Good day. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Stockbroker369 This is an interesting article. It would be to your advantage if you could add a couple of more inline sources. Preferably in the first two paragraphs. Also images need to have the description on them like I just added. — Maile (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is possible that this is heading toward a consensus to keep the article. Please comment on the sources raised in the previous AFD and whether the subject meets the general notability guidelines or WP:NCORP.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:54, 19 June 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 Hindi films of 1977. I don't see a strict consensus for any outcome but this closure would accommodate the opinions of the most participants. I would have closed this AFD discussion as "No consensus" if the references had included page numbers, ensuring that the article subject was actually discussed in them, but just listing books doesn't give me confidence this is the case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Raat

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

fails general notability guideline. search only turns up a song of the same name and the phrase "kali raat". ltb d l (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. ltb d l (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hindi films of 1977: notable cast and musicians, is verifiable (see Books) not opposed to keep if sources can be found to expand this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see it has an entry in Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema. It needs expansion, not deletion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand it? There are no reliable sources. What exactly will you use for content? Meanwhile, why don't you cite that enclopedia article somewhere so we can all read it. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Shahid, notable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List_of_Hindi_films_of_1977#A-Z. No sources with enough coverage and reviews. Fails WP:GNG and fails to warrant a standalone page on the film. RangersRus (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hindi films of 1977 or Delete. The only source I've seen is IMDb, which is as questionable as the current wiki page. I'm not even sure how one would be able to appropriately expand the article, given the lack of WP:SIGCOV. I'm pro-redirect given the notability of those involved in the film. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Keeping it is out of the question. Google finds no reviews, no interviews, no box office, nothing - fails WP:GNG with knobs on. There isn't even a reliable source to establish cast members or release date. I find a monochrome movie poster (VHS box? idk) that names the production company and five members of the crew but no cast and no year. There is no way to write a "reasonably balanced article" without sources. Redirecting to List of Hindi films of 1977 isn't an option. There's no reliable source that confirms it even belongs in that list. I find a movie poster (VHS box? idk) that names five members of the crew but none of the cast or the release date. Without support that entry will be removed sooner or later, the proposed redirect will then redirect to a page that doesn't mention the topic, and we'll waste some time at WP:RfD disposing of an ill-considered redirect. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless more or better coverage at WP:Library or elsewhere convinces us otherwise, redirect to List of Hindi films of 1977. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Entries exist in six books. DareshMohan (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@dareshmohan: where??? ltb d l (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, you added them to the article. but entries are not remotely significant coverage. ltb d l (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review recently added sources to article to see if this satisfies the need for sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the recently added sources satisfy notability. Recently added sources are google snippets. Source snippet 1 has an entry with the names of director, producer, Musician and cast but misses the year. Source snippet 2 has List of entries starting with Kala but does not list Kali Raat. Source snippet 3 has an entry for Kali Raat with name of director and year. No significant coverage or any critical reviews for the film. I still stand by my vote earlier to Delete or Redirect to List_of_Hindi_films_of_1977#A-Z. RangersRus (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Online it is often difficult to find extensive coverage of pre Internet Indian films. But films with notable actors will almost certainly have had reviews in newspapers. We don't even mention the Hindi title for the film. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
काली रात. It means "Black Night". Hard to believe that so many of the stars, singers etc. deserve articles but not the film itself. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:17, 1 July 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!} 00:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denice Zamboanga

AfDs for this article:

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

An article on this mixed martial artist was deleted three years ago after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denice Zamboanga as failing to meet either mixed martial arts notability or general notability. At the time, there were also multiple drafts, probably because someone was trying to game the system. The originators were then blocked for sockpuppetry. This article does not differ materially from the deleted article. The subject still is not top-ten-ranked, and so does not meet mixed martial arts notability. The article does not speak for itself and explain how the subject meets general notability. The subject's association with the ONE Championship is now verified, but "so what?", participation in the ONE Championship is not grounds for notability. The article has been reference-bombed, but nothing in the article refers to significant coverage in an article that does not speak for itself. This article differs enough from the deleted article so that speedy deletion is not in order; but it does not differ enough from the deleted article to avoid deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Martial arts, and Philippines. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 4, 8, 9, 20 and 24 are all RS that talks about her, the article seems to meet notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source #4 is her brother talking, and the subject is only namedropped. Source #8 interviews her, and almost entirely consists of quotes from the subject. Source #9 ... inquirer.net is a reliable source, but that's a scanty article consisting of five sentences aside from quotes from the subject, and that barely scrapes by if at all. #20 looks like a good source. #24 is scanty routine sports coverage. I'm not digging deeper one way or another, but they're weak reeds to hang a keep. Ravenswing 02:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments She has never met WP:NMMA. The first source mentioned above is an article about her brother, she is mentioned in passing because she was on the same fight card. The next three are pre-fight articles about her first match in the promotion's Grand Prix tournament (which would be typical coverage for any fighter). The final reference is a report on that fight, which she lost. Even if you believe that coverage is significant, it is all about one event. Didn't check other references, so I'm not voting yet. Papaursa (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In addition to the sources already in the article, there is [[69]] and [[70]]. Not sure if it is enough to meet the notability guidelines though. Let'srun (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does not meet criteria for WP:MMA. Passing mentions, quotes, interviews, event announcement and results are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG.Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NMMA with sources mentioned by Oaktree and Let's run. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say she meets WP:NMMA? Have you even read the guidelines? Subject needs to be ranked top 10 in the world not a single promotion. She is not in the Top 10 (or even in contenders) according to Sherdog rankings [71] and according to Tapology she is #58 in the world. [72]. She does not meet WP:NMMA at all. Lekkha Moun (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. I don't understand how very experienced editors can vary so widely on how they evaluate sources and their reliability. But it happens every day in AFDLand.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She gets a fair bit of coverage in Filipino media [73], [74], [75], during and after matches. This suggests notability. I might call this a weak keep, but I think we have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: She quite clearly does not meet WP:NMMA, and as for WP:GNG, there are a few reliable sources, but not enough content is from them to justify notability, and too much comes from name drops/non-independent sources. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's clear she doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:ANYBIO, so the question boils down to meeting WP:GNG. I commented earlier on the existing references at the time. Since then user Let'srun added two sources from the week preceding her last fight--the first is that she's training with her fiance and the second is standard prefight coverage about her bout with a completely unranked (by fightmatrix) fighter who took the fight on two weeks notice. The three sources mentioned by Oaktree_b are another pre-fight article on the same fight, that fight's result report, and that the currently injured One promotion champion is willing to fight her "dearest friend" for her title when she recovers from injury (which all sounds promotional and not-independent to me, especially given she's already got a fight scheduled for September). I see lots of coverage in terms of number of articles, but everything seems to be typical coverage that any pro MMA fighter would have. She is currently ranked 41st in the world and has never beaten a top 25 fighter, so there's nothing to distinguish her from other aspiring fighters. She's had 5 fights (3 wins, 2 losses) since the article was previously deleted so it doesn't appear that much has changed. She may become notable, but my crystal ball simply isn't that good. Papaursa (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur with the analysis from Papaursa, this subject may become notable in the future but doesn't meet the WP:GNG today. Let'srun (talk) 21:37, 22 June 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 British Rail departmental locomotives. I see a consensus to retain the content here but move it to a different article and turn this page into a redirect. I hope an editor knowledgeable on the subject will undertake this project of merging this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives

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

Wholly unsourced article since 2009 Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danners430, were you aware that there isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources? Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am aware. However, if you continue reading through that guideline, you’ll find more info - specifically regarding whether editors can find sources elsewhere. I’ve done a search through sources that I know of, and through search engines, and can’t find any sources whatsoever. As per that guideline, that seriously casts into question the notability of the article. Danners430 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is contextless data with no indication of importance or discussion as a group in secondary sources; as such, it fails WP:NLIST. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a book source which I think is enough to establish the topic's notability. Smith, Paul; Smith, Shirley (2014). British Rail departmental locomotives 1948-1968 : includes depots and stabling points. Hersham: Ian Allan Publishing. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-7110-3800-4. OCLC 897871236. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. These statistics are not given any context or meaning. Eastmain above fails to distinguish between departmental locomotives as a whole (we already have British Rail departmental locomotives) and eastern region departmental locomotives. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Merge with British Rail departmental locomotives in the interest of developing a consensus. I'd rather we have one of these list articles than three, that's for sure. There is no reason I can see to have separate list articles when one will do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there is a whole chapter devoted to this subject in volume 10A of Locomotives of the LNER. I have added this source as a reference to the article, along with one for each main section. I don't mind expanding it to one citation for each loco, but it a fair amount of work, and it would be a waste of my time is the article is deleted...

The source also states the location the locos were used at.

This is also part of a series of three articles – the second covers the Southern Region and the third every other region. — Iain Bell (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a series? These are just lists, and British Rail departmental locomotives could easily hold the entire contents of this article if people think it's worth including in the encyclopedia. Splitting them up seems arbitrary and not particularly helpful. We don't need three articles where one would do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - First and foremost, I concur with Eastmain that sources exist to demonstrate notability, and two of these sources have been integrated into the article as of time of nomination. By definition, GNG is satisfied. Being said, looking at WP:NVEHICLE, this subject falls somewhere between the "type" and "subtype" categories in my view, and leans towards the "subtype" classification, falling under the "type" of British Rail departmental locomotives. Beyond functioning as a quasi-"list of" article, prose in this article focus predominantly on the history and numbering structure, which would substantively improve British Rail departmental locomotives. Ergo, I !vote that the article be merged and redirected to a subsection of that article. Ultimately, I will also cite ease of navigation as a factor to consider here. The linking between these articles, especially without the 'British railway locomotives and miscellany, 1948 to present' navbox on some mobile platforms, makes information unnecessarily segmented across articles. Condensing and combining content here seems the best course of action. Bgv. (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the two sources enough to establish notability? Are there more sources we are missing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: Although this information is sourced now, I don't think there is much point treating the Eastern region in a separate article (same for SR departmental locomotives, as far as I'm concerned.) — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I have just proposed a merge of SR departmental locomotives into the main article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into British Rail departmental locomotives. A good compromise for this AfD. gidonb (talk) 02:38, 30 June 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!} 01:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Nikolaeva

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There appears to be a professor and a fashion model with this same name that pop up in the search for sources, but I have no idea if those are the same person. I find nothing about a figure skater; this fails notability, Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The corresponding article in Russian has some decent coverage of this subject. At the very least, there is enough to meet WP:NBASIC. Let'srun (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there are reliable sources you've found, please list them in this discussion or add them to the article, don't just allude to their existence,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sources discussing the subject are found at [[76]], [[77]], [[78]] and [[79]] Let'srun (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing significant in any of those sources. #2 is a fan blog. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still seeking more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the sources linked by Let'srun above, 1 is a profile on the (defunct) website of her skating coach (and thus not independent), 2 and 3 are blogs, and 4 is not WP:SIGCOV. Sources in the article don't qualify toward WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT, and as nominator points out she doesn't meet WP:NSKATE. If more sources are found, please ping me and I'll take another look. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be redirected to ISU Junior Grand Prix in Germany#Women's singles, ISU Junior Grand Prix in France#Women's singles or ISU Junior Grand Prix in Canada#Women's singles. Doesn't meet WP:NSKATE, she hasn't won World Junior Figure Skating Championship, only the intermediate stages of the Junior Grand Prix. Also doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV in Russian or foreign media. Tau Corvi (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely zero value in redirecting to any of those. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:28, 9 July 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. Reading Vladimir Anisimoff, it certainly seems like there should be an abundance of sources on this subject. But given that there aren't, I'm closing this as Delete. Should sources be located in the future, this AFD closure can be revisited. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Anisimoff

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

Appears to be built on no reliable/secondary/independent sources and I'm unable to find any myself. Aza24 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Science. Aza24 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Philosophy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Russian Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article for this person, but it has articles on other people with this name who might be notable by English Wikipedia standards. See ru:Анисимов, Владимир Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, though the article was created 10 years ago, there are zero reliable sources not connected to Anisimoff himself, and I can't find any in Russian. Artem.G (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep if the article can provide reliable sources (per WP:RS), and be re-written to read like an advert (WP:NOTADVERT). If not, delete. —Mjks28 (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the article and reworded a lot of it to sound less biased and impartial. It would be appreciated if other editors could go through and help make it neutral. Mjks28 (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts, but these neutrality issues aren't really a concern for AFD. As you mention, it's the sources that are the defining factor here. Aza24 (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no RS on the page about the person except his own publications. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 25 June 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!} 00:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Kuk-chol (footballer, born 1990)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Article has been unsourced for years, so does corresponding Korean Wikipedia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Considering the long-standing sourcing issue, perhaps deletion is the best option. Waqar💬 19:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, and has been a WP:STUB since 2012. Only has one source. —Mjks28 (talk) 08:34, 23 June 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.

[1] Fisher, Vicky. "When the trains stopped" (PDF). Bell Memorial Public Library.

[1]