Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 13	February 15 >

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The result was withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (chat • stalk • they/she) 15:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of multinational companies with research and development centres in Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. As in there truly isn't one, not "try again in six months". Like all else tied into the events since October 7 and related to the region as a whole, opinions are split. In this case, the bulk of them have policy behind them albeit not necessarily an accurate reading thereof (sourcing does not need to be in English). There is the potential for consensus in the future, but not via another week at AfD. Star Mississippi 02:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas most wanted playing cards

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

Non notable and poorly sourced material. Seems like an excuse to make a list. Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Israel. Shaws username . talk . 14:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shaws username . talk . 14:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable sources. Only a couple of the sources actually mention the cards - the vast majority of references are about the individual terrorists named and make no mention of the cards. It therefore fails WP:NOTABILITY. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails SIGCOV. LegalSmeagolian (talk)

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely looks like significant coverage to me in those citations. Probably we should have an overall article on cards like these used in various wars. On a side note I was shocked that a deputy director in the ministry of health should be identified as a target to be killed, though I guess less than I should be consideing what has already happened there. NadVolum (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's so many examples of SIGCOV from multiple RS in multiple countries, I'm wondering if a WP:BEFORE was done. [1] [2] (Ynet, Israeli national media outlet in both English and Hebrew), [3] (Jerusalem Post, Israeli national media outlet), [4] (Al Bawaba, Jordan), [5] (Arab World Press, London/Riyadh), [6] (The Messenger, U.S.), [7] (Israel Hayom (Hebrew)), [8] (Skynews Arabia, Arabic), [9] (Al-Arabiya, Saudi), and on and on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there two different decks? Those don't all seem to be covering the same deck... From that coverage it appears that there is a government deck and that there is a "Christian cowboy" deck. This page appears to only cover the first so coverage of the second (for example that J-Post article) doesn't count towards the notability of the first. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted out the clearly irrelevant material about an alternate deck of cards but editor Longhornsg has editwarred it back in. Closer, kindly take note. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, stop with the aspersions. It's not WP:EDITWARRING. This article is about decks of cards of Hamas leaders. Alternate versions are of course relevant, as are song covers to the original, and other variations to originals. Besides, it's one source of many. Longhornsg (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is about *a deck* not about decks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article currently has information about two distinct decks of cards featuring depictions of Hamas members. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 20:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally five references in the article that aren't directly referencing the death of someone; they're the ones that need to be evaluated when deciding WP:SIGCOV, not the 19 others, referencing that someone was killed. The Messenger source is just reporting on what was in the Ynet article, so there's only four actual sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been found covering this. Dream Focus 16:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article presents 4 sources, 3 of them in Hebrew and 1 from an unreliable source, the Messenger (a site that shut down after 6 months in operation). Where is AP, Reuters, NYT, BBC etcetera, any kind of serious source? Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Messenger shut down because of business reasons, not the quality of its journalism. A plague that has unfortunately afflicted much of the journalism industry [10], [11], [12]. Additional sources are presented above and are all WP:NEWSORGS. The language of a source does not affect its status as an RS. Would it matter if many of the sources were in Arabic? Of course not. We are not limited to the AP, Reuters, NTY, and the BBC or any other sources. Let's not move the goalposts for what constitutes an RS. Longhornsg (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So it's an "unofficial" deck, why does it need an article? Sourcing barely mentions this "deck" and most are non-RS. Newsweek and the like aren't RS. Seems to be an odd synth of various bits of information, I don't see this as being used in any media. Oaktree b (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment: Multiple independent sources about these decks. Sure, the article could use some more info (who actually made the unofficial IDF deck? could use some more sources about the 12-card deck), but WP:NOTCLEANUP. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 20:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC); Edited, Withdrew 'keep' (forgot about WP:SUSTAINED) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reminds me of the "Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do" article that was deleted recently. Technically the playing cards have been described in news media (just as the article "Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do" was), but it's a flash in the pan, not WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The majority of the page's 19 sources cover the death of someone depicted in a card but without mentioning the cards. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an easy pass of the GNG. gidonb (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The vast majority of the sourcing here is trivial in the extreme, and the few that do cover it more meaningfully are unimpressive with a view to establishing GNG for this topic as a subject of import for a global encyclopedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the extent and scope of extant sources that cover this article's subject would be helpful in bringing this closer to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sourcing issue has been adequately resolved, and it provides value as a kind of before -after picture of the conflict. FortunateSons (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What has been resolved about sourcing? Can WP:SUSTAINED be demonstrated? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing / notability is on point. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see a problem with this article's notability. There is another one with a similar name,Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards that has been on Wikipedia for several years. But maybe it is worth moving this article to "Most-wanted Hamas playing cards" to keep to the same format.--Hazooyi (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is nothing, and the weak coverage shows it. Not SIGCOV, not notable. Zanahary (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reluctant relist. I don't see a consensus here and when it comes down to a decision, I see editors whose AFD experience I respect on both sides of this discussion. A source analysis would be helpful for whomever reviews this next. Right now, there are plenty of opinions but it comes down to whether or not sources establish notability of this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, covered frequently in Hebrew like in [13]. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nothing has really changed here, we require significant and sustained coverage in English language sources and we haven't any such thing. Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, significant coverage isn't determined by language. But WP:SUSTAINED coverage in multiple reliable independent sources hasn't been demonstrated in any languages. The link that חוקרת posted is already in the article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, all else being equal, English sources are preferred merely for accessibility reasons, but not required. When push comes to shove, foreign-language sources are just as valid in counting towards reliability or notability, and cannot be disregarded on the basis of language alone. Please see WP:NONENG. Left guide (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, for this particular case, we have a total of 6 sources, 3 of which are in Hebrew (ie Israeli), 1 from the defunct Messenger, 1 from albawaba.com (Jordan) and an irrelevant one from the Jerusalem Post (Israeli) about a different deck of cards, hardly a stellar set of sources. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That only includes the sources presently in the article; I also see other sources shown in this discussion that should be given fair consideration per WP:NEXIST. Whether a particular source is in or out of the article has no bearing on the topic's notability. Left guide (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asserting that this article is notable based on those sources? Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't reviewed them in-depth, I am simply asserting that any real discussion about the topic's notability needs to address all of the sources available, and not only the ones in the article. Left guide (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those include 3 already in the article and then 2 more Israeli source, an Arab blog established in 2023, and 2 Arabic sources in Arabic. No sight nor sound of the sort of sourcing we usually see for our articles in this topic area. The whole thing is just Israeli propaganda similar to Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards which at least had a modicum of sourcing but probably should be AfD'd as well. Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, both about this article's non-notability and about the playing cards of Iraqi officers as well. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Angourie, New South Wales. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angourie Point

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NPLACE or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. Shaws username . talk . 14:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment As a surfing spot this is likely notable. That said, the tone of the article is hugely unencyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopaedia article on the Angourie National Surfing Reserve could definitely be written. I can find sources for that, which however encompasses more than the point. Also note that it would be a break-out subtopic of Angourie, New South Wales#Attractions, which is fairly bad compared to what a brief search for sources on the NSR turned up, and not even at the point that a sub-article is needed.
This article reads like a tourist guide, personal opinions in Wikipedia's voice and all.
Uncle G (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angourie, New South Wales – this article covers that which Wikipedia is not. Anything relevant about the point can be included in the village article, the village actually administratively covers the knob/point and there is no notable reason why a seperate article is warranted. Idiosincrático (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Man Alive (band). Consensus that this is a valid WP:ATD; notability for the target article can be discussed at a separate AfD if need be. ^Complex/_Rational 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Work in Progress (album)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Starz#Lionsgate+. ✗plicit 00:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StarzPlay by Cinepax

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

~~Service is defunct as of 2024 and cited sources are unreliable, i.e. sponsored posts, press releases, etc. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Internet, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with above points, there is enough wrong with it that it would be too much trouble to edit it into an acceptable state, and even then I don't think it would be notable enough. The brief coverage the topic is given in Starz is probably enough. Endersslay (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge salvagables into Starz#Lionsgate+, where it seems the details about Starz's international streaming services have been placed (the service mentioned here is now called Starz On, by the way, and is hosted here). Nate • (chatter) 17:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into Starz#Lionsgate+ as above as per WP:ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 13:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest companies in Pakistan

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

~~I'm not sure if we need such a list when we have List of companies of Pakistan. Possibly redirect or delete. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of companies of Pakistan as lacking a clear selection criteria. BrigadierG (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The topic is significant enough to have a stand-alone article for it. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Should be improved with more sources.Afus199620 (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Should be improved with more sources" is true for every article on the project. I'm more interested in knowing what sources do exist that caused your opinion to Keep, Delete or Merge this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Fails WP:LISTN. 103.148.128.126 (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omni Group of Companies Pakistan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barry Habib

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

Claims to notability:

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails AUTHOR with no book reviews I can find and only where to buy the book... I don't see news about the Broadway involvement and he seems to be a "subject matter expert" in the business world [14], [15] but all I can find are just him talking about various things to other people. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Arif Kamal Noon

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

~~Non-notable advocate. There is no reference that is directly about him. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is former Elected Chairman Executive of Punjab Bar Council and former Prosecutor General Punjab, If he non-notable then who is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.25.233 (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage of this individual. Being elected president of the bar council isn't terribly notable, and we don't have reliable sources about this person upon which to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News hits are simply name drops of him appearing in court for various cases; that's what a lawyer does, not indicating notability for our standards here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking at WP:NPOL - he's a lawyer who has held a state-wide office (Prosecutor General of Punjab) - however, that is a secondary criterion, and I am struggling to find reliable english sources discussing him and his career. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 14:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:BEFORE reveals nothing of note. 105.103.152.170 (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep. he held important offices, chairman executive for punjab bar council, and Prosecutor General for Punjab, hence Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. user who recommended it for deletion was a sockpuppet175.107.25.206 (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 05:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Muhammad Akram Khan

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Promotional article about a non-notable advocate. There is no reference that is directly about him. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock[reply]

He is elected representative of lawyers body since very long, some of the sources not traceable on the web, some in urdu language, but He is notable politician-advocate on the face of it as he is covered by international media and held a notable position as chairman executive punjab bar council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.25.233 (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AUTOBIO. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Onuorah

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other sources include:

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yakov Kazyansky

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Local/regional coverage: Yarkipedia: КАЗЬЯНСКИЙ Яков Лазаревич (NB: article is signed by author, it's not a wiki); Severni Krai (regional newspaper): Антиреалист Казьянский и его религия, same article scanned from the paper version of the newspaper [16] (NB: author of this piece is presumably the author of the article for the local encyclopedia); Yaroslavl region section of the Union of Artists of Russia (short bio on account of one of his performances): Концерт №2 цикла "Музыкальные среды" (NB: possibly falls under promotional, but I think it sort of helps with notability); Rybinski dnevnik (local news portal): В Ярославле отметили 30-летие российской премьеры рок-оперы «Иисус Христос — суперзвезда»; Yaroslavl edition of Komsomolskaia Pravda: В России рок-оперу «Иисус Христос Суперзвезда» впервые увидели в Рыбинске

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

Participation in international-ish events: Prostokvashino festival (North Carolina) [17] (NB: event seems to cater to Russian-speaking diaspora groups in the US)

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCBT-LD

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania. ✗plicit 14:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Tanzania, Beijing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KVHF-LD

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

İbrahim Kavrakoğlu

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

The article only has two sources which are not secondary or independent and despite being tagged for two years has not yet been resolved Migustakdtrey (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Engineering, Turkey, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article can be verified, so we can delete per WP:V without even considering notability. But considering notability anyway: nothing in the article rises to a claim of notability through WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR; in particular, publishing many things is not notability. We need evidence of impact through e.g. high citation counts or published book reviews and we have none of those. Provost of Boğaziçi University is not head of the university (it has apparently always been headed by a rector) and none of his other academic positions is high enough. He did not win the 1988 Franz Edelman Award for Achievement in Operations Research and the Management Sciences; he was merely one of five members in one of six also-ran teams. If he has headed important Turkish government development work, we need published reliable sources with in-depth content about his role in that work to pass WP:GNG, and we don't have those either. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Connections for International Health

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

Google, as well as all the sources listed on this page only turn up primary sources, non-notable awards/mentions and press releases, same with Scholar. It is known that notability is not inherited, and just because notable organisations are connected to this one, it doesn't mean this organisation is notable. Hence due to a lack of reliable sources, this fails WP:NCORP and the general notability guideline. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 11:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, and United States of America. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 11:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Christianity, Medicine, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I also tried Google Books, but can still only find passing mentions. Wikishovel (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to draft give it a time, it could be well sourced.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COPYVIO, WP:SPAM, WP:SOAP, and WP:SIGCOV. In my mind a copyright violation is an automatic delete, period, but we need to address additional issues. It reeks of spam and soapboxing. There are no secondary sources. Draftifying it won't resolve these issues. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Les Cyclopes

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt College Quirino

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

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

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

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Outline of education#Educational organizations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy of schools

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

Unreferenced WP:OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outline_of_education#Educational_organizations, where the navbox lists the same items. Reywas92^Talk 14:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Outline_of_education#Educational_organizations: rather than redirect. The "By age" section is pretty much a content fork of Educational stage, but much of the rest of the article contains useful, verifiable information arranged in an encyclopedic way. If there's a better merge target, I'll gladly go with that. Owen× ☎ 16:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Siege of Manchar

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

Very poor sourcing, almost all of the sources listed are unreliable. Firstly, the creator of this article, Ronnie Macroni, has a history of creating poorly sourced and written articles, inundated with religious aggrandization, copyvio, and Google Book snippets to erroneously bolster the Sikhs' military achievements. He has been warned of such behaviour before. Two of the only reliable sources, Hari Ram Gupta p.9, as well as the Encyclopedia of Sikhism, only marginally discuss this siege with no mention of the result or casualties, rather it focuses on a likely embellished anecdote of Ranjit Singh-[18]. The article almost certainly is using Google snippets of Gulshan Lal Chopra and Gokul Chand Narang's works rather than a thorough perusal of them, the former is certainly a Raj era source as is Narang's given that all his publicly available books were written between 1910-1947. [19]. Duggal isn't a historian, Lepel Henry Griffin is a Raj era source, Manish Kumar's work is self published and Patwant Singh is not a historian. Fails WP:RS and Wikipedia's notability standards. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Aoidh (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debjani Modak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally - Please confirm when you have completed these tasks.

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

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

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

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

For example,

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

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

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

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

Source eval:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Syntagmatarchis. BusterD (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antisyntagmatarchis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Procedural Keep as the nomination has been withdrawn and there are no editors arguing for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nera Corsi

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

It was created by a hoax/NOTHERE user who has since been blocked. I've previously AFD'd their pages. This particular page is more complex, as the hoax creator has crafted it deceptively. They have mashed up various sources that mention the subject's name, added historical images, and done everything possible to make it difficult to easily verify the authenticity of the claims. After checking the cited sources, I found that some of them do not support the facts stated in the article. Some sources, such as [20], don't even mention the subject at all. I also checked Wikipedia Library and couldn't find any organized or in-depth source detailing her life.

It appears that a person named Nera Corsi did exist in the 15th century, but they did not lead the life described in this article. In summary, ~~this is a hoax article that combines sources and images mentioning the subject's name to create a veneer of legitimacy but is filled with misinformation and fabricated stories.~~ Even if the subject was notable, this article cannot be relied upon as factual due to its pervasive inaccuracies. As per new findings, I'm withdrawing this nom. But I'd still question the notability of the subject, agreeing with User:3 kids in a trenchcoat's opinions regarding the subject's notability. X (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So I've only done a fairly cursory search, and only in English, but just about everything in the article checks out. This book from 2018 says on page 20 that Nera's tomb is "the only extant independent, fifteenth-century tomb for a married woman in Florence", which is probably her main claim to significance. On page 132 the author says that "the function of the Sassetti Chapel was to house the tombs of Francesco Sassetti and his wife Nera Corsi", and a caption on page 133 dates her tomb specifically to 1485. Pages 31 and 32 also briefly talk about her portrayal in Domenico Ghirlandaio's portrait of her, but this isn't really relevant to the article.

Then this book from 2000 and this one from 1981 (only available in snippet view) both briefly describe Nera's tomb and note that its decoration appears to be a pun on her name; they don't say anything about her life, but they at least corroborate the image gallery currently in the article, so it's not a hoax.

This book, which is cited in the article, was the last source I checked, but I'm putting it here because most of what the article says about Nera's life is in here. It shows her in a family tree of the Sassetti family, with dates of birth, death, and marriage for her and her children. It doesn't really seem to say anything else about her, though. So it seems that the first three sentence-paragraphs in the "life" section of the article are sourced from basically a chart. It's not a bad source; it's good for establishing the dates of birth and death and whatnot, but I don't think it's really a significant mention.

I could also find some other (prose, non-chart) information about her life in other sources: this book (first page of chapter 11; I can't see the page number] briefly mentions that she was 15 years old when she married Francesco Sassetti in 1458 (he was apparently 37 years old then, ewww) and that she came from a prominent Florentine family that was "also closely allied with the Medici". This book from 1990, on the other hand, says her family came from Fiesole, so I'm not sure which is more accurate. Finally, this website I see that her son Teodoro apparently died in 1478 and then she gave birth to a second son also named Teodoro a few months later. I'm not sure that this site really constitutes a good source, though.

So the bulk of Nera's current article can be traced back to sources that predate the article's creation. The only parts I could not verify are (A) the claim that her tomb is "the only woman's tomb not only in Florence but in all of Italy from the 15th century", which seems like a massive overstating of what Maria DePrano said (which I quoted above); (B) the immediately following claim that her tomb has become "a historical and cultural landmark", which probably applies more to the Sassetti Chapel as a whole than her tomb specifically; and (C) some of the specifics about her family, like her father being a powerful banker or her being born in Florence. Most of the article's last paragraph I also didn't bother checking, but it's mostly background about the chapel's construction and it can probably also be verified, possibly already in DePrano's book.

So the article is not a hoax, but I'm not sure if it meets notability guidelines. "The only extant independent, fifteenth-century tomb for a married woman in Florence" seems like an overly-narrow qualifier to me, and none of the sources contains much more than a trivial mention of Nera herself. It's mostly related to her tomb, or to the painting of her, or her marriage and family. While I would personally rather see the article kept, I think a merge into the Sassetti Chapel article would probably make the most sense. However, I'm not sure what the notability guidelines are for 15th-century Italian noblewomen, and she may satisfy those. I also haven't checked any Italian-language sources, and those might have a more in-depth biography of her. -- 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This article is most decidedly not a hoax. Talk about a failure of WP:BEFORE. Even a cursory search on Google Scholar or JSTOR would reveal that much. There are dozens of high quality sources. I'll add a few to the article to make my point, but this isn't something I'm really interested in editing. On the other hand nom should consider withdrawing this AfD, as it's extraordinarily misguided. Central and Adams (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Some of the comments given here don't make much sense, from an English-language perspective, but those arguments which are persuasive are for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line

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

I decided now to nominate this article for deletion, after thinking for some time. The article is essentially a recreation of a similar one that was deleted. Questionable notability, the only notability claim that uses sources that are independent of the subject or its owners is about a complaint by a Pampanga-based business group. Other than that, much of the article is an original research (WP:OR), and several of the sources are discouraged primary sources, most especially those connected to the power transmission firm and the surveys or studies that are considered primary (not secondary). Insufficient reliable sources that are independent of the subject or its owners or research firms, and secondary. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can add it by adding inline citations and original source from the NGCP Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 11:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shonyx NGCP is not an independent source, right? We need more sources that are unrelated to the subject. NGCP is the operator of the transmission line itself, and its website is already non-independent of the subject itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'am not owned this article, @Ervin111899 currently owned this article and I also add some of the missing information, adding some correct citations etc. Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 12:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shonyx note I mentioned you since you responded here and I need to get your attention in my response. Also, take note that no user can own a Wikipedia article, per WP:OWN, as Wikipedia articles are collaborative works.

Any way, the pre-COVID pandemic era article of the same transmission line – that got deleted – was also created by Ervin111899. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What happened about the article was created in 2019 before pandemic Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 01:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @JWilz12345, what happened to the same article "Hermosa–Balintawak Transmission Line" since pre-COVID-19 pandemic. Is something wrong about the citations or lacking information. Since @Ervin111899 was after indefinitly blocked, due to abusing multiple accounts, he/him/their/they created the second article named Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line but ended up as another deletion that mentions the article has lack of citations, external links or it can be lack of information in power transmission operators NAPOCOR, Transco, and NGCP. Their documents is privately secured and the inaacurate infos is in the said article. So thats why you have to nominate in the said article and possible deletion of @Ervin111899 as the articles not to be supposed by the viewers and even breaking the NGCP's property. Thanks a lot! -- Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 10:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shonyx read this. You seem to haven't visited the link I inserted at "was deleted" at the nomination paragraph above. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I visited twice. Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 14:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to move the message? Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 15:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I doubt we can get more editors interested in discussing the fate of an article about a transmission line but right now we need more participation. As for the discussion thus far, it's hard for me to make sense of it. Can we return to talk about sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @User:Liz I'm responding to Your call for participation and FWIW I'll try to find time over the weekend to take a look at this article. Pieces of infrastructure may be notable but don't necessarily need to be. For the moment I assume good faith in terms of the article. Hope to get back to You in a couple of days with some information. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must this page is to keep it because some viewers curious in NLEX. Keep this page for all curious viewers Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 08:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shonyx unfortunately, much of the sources are not independent of the subject. NGCP and DOE are not counted as reliable sources because they are connected or related to the subject, thus the sources are non-independent and do not give weight to the notability of this article.

Also, too many original researches, which are discouraged, read WP:OR. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR/NPC) and National Transmission Corporation (TransCo), although both were also involved in the transmission line and its associated projects when they operated and maintained the Philippine power grid (NAPOCOR/NPC from June 1994 to March 1, 2003 and TransCo from March 1, 2003 to January 15, 2009), are also not counted as reliable sources because they are connected or related to the subject thus the sources coming from them (or company name shown (none at all for the case of lands and rights-of-way (ROWs) or portions acquired and designated by NAPOCOR/NPC where it simply says "Danger: High Voltage Keep Away") on high voltage signs because that company was the one designated and acquired the lands where the structures/facilities are located and portions of a power line when the line and their structures are seen physically or on Google Maps) are non-independent. Ervin111899 (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the original sources Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 11:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The excessive use of the original sources can be discourage to viewers Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 11:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shonyx we need more secondary sources, like SunStar source used in the controversy section. Significant coverage of the transmission line in reliable, independent secondary sources will give more weight than non-independent sources (like DOE etc.) or primary sources (like NGCP, TransCo etc.). This ensures the article is neutral and not providing facts that unreasonably favor the people or organizations heavily connected to the subject, like NGCP and DOE. Secondary sources may include reputable news outlets or agencies, like Philippine News Agency, Rappler, GMA News, ABS-CBN News, or Manila Bulletin. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We don't need editors extolling the benefit of secondary sources, which we all already know, we need opinions and arguments from editors on what should happen with THIS article. Without more decisive opinions, this discussion right now could close as Soft Delete or No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz we already have precedent, and that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermosa-Balintawak Transmission Line, targeting the article of essentially the same subject and was closed as delete. Ervin111899 recreated this article, using primary sources and applied WP:original research. I should have nominated this recreated article earlier, but as they say, better late than never. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only notability claim that uses sources that are independent of the subject or its owners is about a complaint regarding the relocation of the line's San Fernando section by a Pampanga-based business group. Other than that, the article mostly contains primary sources (information that came from National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR/NPC), National Transmission Corporation (TransCo), and National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) which are companies that were involved on a power line and its associated projects during their operations and maintenance (O&M) period on the line, whether on documents for the construction of a power line and its projects or physically (Danger: High Voltage signs placed on steel poles or lattice towers)). Ervin111899 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Warren Pettey

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No comments since the last two relists. No point relisting again as the community doesn't seem to care if the article is deleted. Keep and redirect !votes are also not seconded in two weeks. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schulze STV

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

The article in its current form contains several unsubstantiated claims, e.g., about Schulze-STV satisfying Droop-Proportionality or monotonicity. Further, the method is not published in any peer-reviewed work or used by anyone else except for Schulze. As such it does not seem to meet the notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannikp97 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Schulze STV" is also known as "Schulze proportional". Although the paper "The Schulze Method of Voting" (arXiv:1804.02973) hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal because of its sheer length, it is cited in academic papers and frequently mentioned in discussions because of the Condorcet criterion for multi-winner elections this paper purports. Markus Schulze 11:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkusSchulze: am I right in assuming you are the Markus Schulze who invented the method described in the article? While I am honoured to be in the presence of the mathematician who came up with the polynomial-complexity Schulze method (and to a lesser extent, the exponential-complexity Schulze STV...), you should probably review WP:Conflict of interest before you continue editing articles about your work, or participating in discussions about those articles. We value your contribution to Wikipedia, none of which appear to be tainted by bias or self-promotion. However, to maintain neutrality and editorial independence, editors with an apparent conflict of interest must identify themselves as such, and ideally, abstain from editing pages related to themselves or their work. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Single transferable vote: where it is already mentioned. A well written article about this largely impractical voting system, but no notability to support a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this would really be a valid redirect, since Schulze STV is quite different from regular STV. Jannikp97 (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many single transferable vote algorithms, and Schulze is one of them, which is why it is listed in that article. Owen× ☎ 14:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do really think that is true. STV usually refers to a precise family of rules. Schulze STV does not belong to that family, despite its name. Jannikp97 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanika Tekriwal

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of association football clubs by average attendance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of English Premier League club nicknames

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep‎. All but one person who participated in the discussion opposed deletion. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sarimsakci

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

Fails notability guidelines. Article has had a notability tag since 2017 with no substantial edits since. Other than occasional local coverage mentioning him being involved in various low-profile real estate deals, he seems to only be notable for a real estate deal with the Trump Organization in Dallas that didn't go through (WP:1E). Slinkyo (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Turkey, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTWHOSWHO Aintabli (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This individual has been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. These include a >1,500-word profile in Intelligencer, a >2,000-word profile in The Dallas Morning News, coverage within broader investigative reporting by The New York Times, another profile in the St. Louis Business Journal, and some coverage in The Mercury-News in the context of development in California. As always, the important part of 1E is the number 1, but we've got multiple events here. As such, he appears to pass WP:GNG/WP:NBASIC, and I see no alternative but to keep the article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's all coverage about bad business deals though, I'd argue that's still 1E, being bad at something over and over. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reject the notion that all of these separate instances of coverage can be plausibly considered as a single event. They are clearly different events happening in different states and in different years. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He's gotten coverage, but one bad business deal after another. [21], [22], [23], could argue we have GNG, but I'm not sure we have enough to build a non-neutral article. I don't think being bad at your job is what gets you an article, unless it rises to criminal notability, which this doesn't. Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The GNG imposes no talent or aptitude requirements. We have articles about William McGonagall, Stuart "Captain Calamity" Hill, Robert Coates (actor), and Tommy Wiseau. So whether Sarimsakci is good at his job or not is irrelevant, providing there is significant coverage of more than one event, which Red-tailed hawk has demonstrated. Jfire (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to add to that list, but I realise that if even just the obvious cases were listed (Eric the Eel anyone?) it would soon get very long. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Red-tailed hawk Tehonk (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep after seeing Red-tailed hawk's points. Aintabli (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. BusterD (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal ASE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:ATA#CRYSTAL

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

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

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

Reply: [24] very interesting, but it is a video monologue from the subject. Fails WP:IS. I would like to keep this article, but I can't find sources and can't just vote keep because ILIKEIT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here. If it was up to me, I'd suggest considering a merge or draftification but that is not an AFD closure decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thajuddin

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

The article is about Chera Perumals of Makotai and specially it covers Legend of Cheraman Perumals and it already covered about Thajuddin. But the current article is not give reliable source and some sources NOT directly confirm certain events. Splitting of the Moon is a believe, not historical and scientific event. Did Thajuddin lived during the time of Muhammad or after Mohamed? Legend of Cheraman Perumals already cover the topic and no need to have another non proven person. Antan O 18:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Antan O 18:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of Thajuddin's page in Wikipedia is justified as it encapsulates a significant historical and cultural figure. While acknowledging the challenges regarding source reliability, Thajuddin represents a figure of substantial folklore and tradition, contributing to the rich tapestry of cultural narratives. Despite the debate surrounding the historical accuracy of certain events attributed to him, his presence in historical discussions provides insight into the socio-political milieu of his time. Thajuddin's purported existence, whether contemporaneous with or postdating Muhammad, offers a lens through which to explore the interplay of legend and history in the broader narrative of the Cheraman Perumals and their era. Therefore, his inclusion fosters a more comprehensive understanding of the cultural heritage and historical discourse surrounding the Cheraman Perumals of Makotai. DonParlo (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: DonParlo is the same person as the socks below --Blablubbs (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kings are automatically notable. Somebody moved the article to Draft. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kings are notable. But, Why this duplicate page (Chera Perumals of Makotai and Legend of Cheraman Perumals)? Already this article was declined. User already mentioned it as folklore and tradition, and it already covered in Legend of Cheraman Perumals. There is no reliable source, and the reliable sources point to Cheraman Perumal, not so called Thajuddin who met Muhammad (from Kerala to Mecca). --Antan O 11:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern about potential duplication and the classification of the topic as folklore and tradition, but the existence of a separate page dedicated to Thajuddin, who purportedly met Muhammad, serves to provide a focused platform for exploring this aspect of Kerala's history and its cultural narratives. While it may be acknowledged as folklore, documenting such narratives contributes to the broader understanding of regional legends and their cultural significance. Moreover, although sources may vary in reliability, the presence of differing accounts underscores the diversity of perspectives and interpretations within historical discourse. As such, maintaining a distinct page for Thajuddin allows for a nuanced examination of this figure and his alleged encounter, enriching the discourse surrounding Kerala's historical and cultural landscape. The article in Legend of Cheraman Perumals does not cover this Legend in detail. DonParlo (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

//Thajuddin, who purportedly met Muhammad, serves to provide a focused platform for exploring this aspect of Kerala's history and its cultural narratives// Can you give reliable source for such claim? --Antan O 15:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ O. Loth, Arabic Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office (London: Secretary of State of India, 1877), no. 1044.

^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g Y. Friedmann, "Qissat Shakarwati Farmad: A Tradition Concerning the Introduction of Islam to Malabar", Israel Oriental Studies 5 (1975), 239-241.

^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Prange, Sebastian R. Monsoon Islam: Trade and Faith on the Medieval Malabar Coast. Cambridge University Press, 2018. 95-98.

^ Y. Friedmann, "Qissat Shakarwati Farmad: A Tradition Concerning the Introduction of Islam to Malabar", Israel Oriental Studies 5 (1975), 239-241.

^ H. H. Wilson, Mackenzie Collection. A descriptive catalogue of the Oriental manuscripts and other articles illustrative of the literature, history, statistics and antiquities of the south of India (Calcutta, 1828), II, appendix, p. XCV.

^ Prange, Sebastian R. Monsoon Islam: Trade and Faith on the Medieval Malabar Coast. Cambridge University Press, 2018. 98. DonParlo (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.scribd.com/document/519315791/Qissat-Shakarwati-Farmad-a-Tradition-Con DonParlo (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at this objectively this wiki page does not do that much significant to anything. So what's the point of deleting it. I think people should keep this page. Is it gives a deeper insight into the legend. ஸ்டீவன் ஸ்கால் (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Blablubbs (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To begin with the subject of the page Thajuddin, there is no reference that it was formerly called Tamil King Cheraman Perumal. More so, there are contentious websites and some references that are just scraps as if someone did a Google search to find a word and used it as a testimony for a much larger paragraph. I find it impossible to verify the paragraphs from the references given. RangersRus (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Legend of Cheraman Perumals. The legend of the introduction of Islam to India is certainly notable, but the present article presents this legend as fact. The Legend of Cheraman Perumals article can be expanded with the specific events in the legend (the vision of the split moon and the pilgrimage to Mecca) if Indian historiographic sources are sufficient to verify that this is, in fact, part of the known legend. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge would be good, but need to cleanup per RS. Antan O 19:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock !votes --Blablubbs (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep: It is a important to keep this page as it expands on the over all legend and story of Thajuddin putting it in other pages such as the Legend of Cheraman Perumals doesn't do it justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by சரோகம (talk • contribs) 22:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Keeping the wiki page on Thajuddin's existence is justified for several reasons. Firstly, Thajuddin is a figure recognized by Islamic scholars, lending credibility to his historical existence. Numerous Arabic texts, including works like the Qissat Shakarwati-Farmad, reference him, along with recorded hadiths attributed to Abu Sa’id al-Khudri. Moreover, the presence of a tomb dedicated to Thajuddin in Oman serves as tangible evidence supporting his existence. Therefore, considering the scholarly acknowledgment, textual references, and physical evidence, maintaining the wiki page on Thajuddin is logical and warranted.
ManOfJusticekk (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per nomination and heavy involvements of SOCKS --~AntanO4task (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relisting did not establish any clear consensus, but only few sock votes. Relisting again for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a confusing mess. The discussion above is all over the place, the sourcing seems odd. TNT is probably best. Could draft it, but we'd need to start from zero again. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Edit: People should keep the wiki page of Thajuddin even if it is poorly sourced because it provides a starting point for further research and discussion, potentially leading to the improvement of the page's quality over time. According to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, "Information provided in an article must be verifiable and cited to reliable sources, even if it is not actually footnoted in the article." This means that while poorly sourced information should be improved, the existence of the page itself is justified as long as efforts are made to enhance its reliability and accuracy. தமிழ் வீரன் ஜைத் (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sending it to draft would better suit what you're describing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You ID seems new and your edit patterns are similar as per above socks. Antan O 19:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am from India I use a VPN it sends me to random places I don't edit much as I just started this account I only fix spelling errors usually. தமிழ் வீரன் ஜைத் (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kings area always notable, and a first king to embrace a religion is absolutely notable. The article needs work for sure, but that doesn't justify deletion. DarmaniLink (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you didn't see the duplicate page that already exist with primary name. AntanO 19:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Legend of Cheraman Perumals DarmaniLink (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Ľubomír Pištek

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Slovakia. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The guy played over 400 games. It would be jaw-droppingly staggering if there were no sources. We shouldn't be looking strictly online Geschichte (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found [26], [27], [28], these and more in Czech and Slovak, but I am not sure how 'in-depth' they are.18abruce (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Olive Township, Decatur County, Kansas. BusterD (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vallonia, Kansas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UKGameshows.com

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep as notability has now been demonstrated. Cortador (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Winkler (surname). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Winkler (disambiguation)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Johannes Winkler (disambiguation)

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

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic. I don't believe that the politician meets WP:DABMENTION, as they are hardly even mentioned at Junge Generation. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed this nomination, which appears to have accidentally nominated the Johannes Winkler article and not the disambiguation page. No other comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how I messed that up. Thank you for fixing my stupid mistake. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets MOS:DABMENTION as it is mentioned in the article. That makes 3 valid entries, plus a see also link to John rather than Johannes, which is particularly useful as some people, particularly historically, are written both ways. Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DABMENTION says a subject that is discussed in an article; Johannes Winkler is merely mentioned in an infobox. A DAB isn’t a list of everyone with that name mentioned on Wikipedia. DABs are not search indexes, so a link to John Winkler does not add validity. That makes two valid entries, one of which is primary topic, so the DAB is invalid per WP:ONEOTHER. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Winkler (surname). Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment several additions to page since nominated. Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Winkler (surname): This disambiguation page only distinguishes between 2 real things. Junge Generation is just a name in an infobox and the last is just a one off sentence in an article about a different person (also spelled differently). StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. GNG and SIGCOV met with the recent additions. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Britt Richardson

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment I found [29] mentioning the team bronze in 2023, [30] about the recent GS victory, and [31] includes the 3 top-20 World Cup GS finishes this year. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I upgraded the article. I would also like to point out that the article is present in 5 other Wikipedias around the world. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clearly a world-level skier, [32] [33] [34] [35] etc. Geschichte (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Aoidh (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Out of the Ordinary

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

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

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

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

Keep Reviews in Waterloo Region Record [36], Ottawa Citizen [37], The Province [38], Winnepeg Sun [39] DonaldD23 talk to me 02:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in here with some publicly accessible links to the articles above:
— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus among P&G-based views is that NPOL does not apply in this case. In the absence of NPOL, there is clear consensus that NBIO/GNG is not met. Owen× ☎ 23:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renata Wielgosz

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was about 10 months ago. This person lacks significant coverage. She does not even get 1 gnews hit, which is unusual for an ambassador from a major country. None of the keep !votes last time provided any examples of sources. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Cyprus, Greece, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The situation has not changed since the last AfD, and the subject still meets WP:NPOL after serving as second vice-chair of the Organization of American States and director of Global Affairs Canada. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject, page is well sourced and written from a neutral point of view. While it might never be more than a stub, it deserves its place on Wikipedia. Broc (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2 of the sources are primary, the first source is a 1 line mention and the remaining source is a dead link. How exactly does she meet WP:BIO? LibStar (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar I might revise my !vote, I started looking for sources and there is little WP:SIGCOV of the subject in secondary sources. I could only find a talk she gave at her alma mater and a farewell from the Canadian Institute in Greece. A bit weak for WP:BIO. Broc (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, as mentioned above, WP:NPOL is probably met. Broc (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: worth pointing out that no reason to overturn the last AfD was given by the nominator. What did the previous AfD get so wrong that we have to be back here 10 months later? Also worth noting that the same editor has nominated this both times. -- asilvering (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No rule against the same person renominating. LibStar (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though it seems poor form so quickly after the previous SNOW keep, and seems disruptive; do you have a point to this?. Nfitz (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the keep !votes last time provided any examples of sources. LibStar (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, which not a single vote in either AfD has addressed. The "well sourced" comment is wrong - she's mentioned in one sentence of the Globe and Mail article, one is from the Cyprus government showing she's the ambassador, one link is broken, the two remaining links in the articles are links to a directory database of Canadian governmental workers. I cannot find any sigcov in my search, and ambassadors do not get an NPOL free pass. SportingFlyer T·C 17:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NPOL, [p]oliticians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office are presumed notable, and this person has quite simply held national office in her role as ambassador. She has also served as second vice-chair of the Organization of American States, meaning that she has held international office in addition to being an ambassador. Her OAS experience actually predates her appointment to the role of ambassador of Venezuela, and her meeting WP:NPOL is more than sufficient to satisfy WP:NBIO. Nothing has changed since last time, where there was consensus to keep this article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" this person has quite simply held national office in her role as ambassador." Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Over 100 have been deleted by consensus. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as for the role in the OAS, where she held international office? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was specifically talking about her role as ambassador, ambassadors do not a get a free pass under WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk I don't understand your line of thinking here. That's not "holding international office". We don't say that every diplomat, ambassador, or UN employee is inherently notable. The OAS role doesn't qualify for NPOL either, as far as I can tell. I presume the secretary-general of the OAS would, but I'd also presume they'd already be notable by WP:GNG. -- asilvering (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have experience creating an article about a diplomat (Wendy Hinton), and searches in all the places I looked for sources there come up negative. Entirely unconvinved wp:NPOL is met, and there's no reason to think sources offline exist. Mach61 (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL, and strong procedural keep as it was renominated by the same person, after a previous snow close. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're allowed to re-nominate, and NPOL does not apply here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it does. She served as second vice-chair of the OAS and director of Global Affairs Canada. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, how does it apply in that case? Second, how does it apply if GNG still isn't met? NPOL provides a presumption, not a guarantee. SportingFlyer T·C 18:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But then what's the point of NPOL if it just serves as a maybe, maybe not? It wouldn't add anything to a notability discussion beyond just what's at GNG. It looks like it was added as an introductory sentence in 2018 but nothing on the 2018 talk page (unless I missed it) supported that addition (or at least that change in policy) just a conversation about changing #3 Shaws username . talk . 19:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It serves as a guideline - if you've won an elected official position, there's almost certainly been GNG-passing coverage of you at some point. I do not believe serving on the OAS is a NPOL pass, and even if it were, NPOL still ultimately requires GNG coverage in order to have an article written about you, especially if you're a BLP. SportingFlyer T·C 19:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus What does Global Affairs Canada have to do with WP:NPOL? People who work for Global Affairs are civil servants, not politicians. Unless they're cabinet ministers, which she isn't. -- asilvering (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's allowed in the sense that you aren't going to get blocked for it, it's still frankly bad form. DarmaniLink (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you aren't going to get blocked for it the first time ... :) Nfitz (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I took a pass at improving the sourcing in the article. It appears that she was not the director of GAC, but rather a director of a division within GAC. I don't think that's a position that gives automatic NPOL notability (the same goes for the ambassadorships), so we need to consider WP:GNG instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- On further consideration, delete. I strongly disagree with the NPOL-based keep opinions above (the clear consensus of past AFDs is that ambassador does not automatically pass NPOL although ambassadors may be GNG-notable, and none of her other positions are even at that level of visibility). And my searches have convinced me that there just isn't enough coverage of her in independent sources for GNG. The York University source that I added is the best so far, but as she is an alum it isn't independent enough to count. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's almost nothing available in independent secondary RS, and certainly nothing SIGCOV. She does not meet NPOL, which merely presumes notability anyway, so she has to meet GNG.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ambassadors have never been considered to be inherently notable, and this person fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Yilloslime (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rayongwittayakhompaknam School

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Thailand. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that searches are complicated here by the language conventions in naming which mean the name of the school on this page is wrong. This should be "Wittayakom Paknam school" located in Rayong, or perhaps with alternate English orthography of "Wittayakhom paknam school". That still doesn't turn up much. "Wittayakom school" gets a few more including a couple of book mentions, but at this stage I am not sure if that is the same school. Noting this information now for the sake of anyone else conducting searches. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So "Wittayakom" is a type of (senior) school it seems. The name of this school is "Paknam school" in Rayong, also rendered "Pak nam" school. Under that name I find a lot more information. E.g. Google: [40]. I'll have to do some reading now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it the wrong way round; Thai language places modifiers after nouns, so you have to translate terms in reverse of the English order. "Rayongwittayakom Paknam" is the name of the school. It's a daughter school in Paknam of Rayongwittayakom School, hence the name. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I got that far, but Rayong is the place, and isn't wittayakom the type of school? But useful information that is is the daughter school of another with a page. I'll modify to merge on that basis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Witthayakhom (and spelling variants) is just a common suffix that's sometimes combined with the province name to form the name of the province's main government school; it doesn't carry any actual meaning by itself. Each province will usually have one or two government secondary schools recognised as the main school for that province; these schools often (but don't always) have the province name in their names. See below regarding the merge suggestion though. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's helpful. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I will happily move to redirect if a target can be found. ~~(ETA: Merge to Rayongwittayakom School)~~(ETA2 - new comment below). I have reviewed all the sources I can turn up. Wat Paknam school is a different school, but I think I searched thoroughly through all English language sources of Wittayakom Paknam school, searching all references to Paknam and Pak nam school. There are book mentions, and a few news paper mentions. Book mentions are directories, the newspaper mentions incidental (e.g. an Elephant race started at the school, but doesn't seem to have had anything to do with the school). In a pollution incident, 140 students at another school were moved to this school temporarily, and in this thesis paper[41], students from the school were studied. Schools are not inherently notable, and this is not enough to pass GNG. One major caveat is that I speak no Thai, and there may be more sources in Thai. If SIGCOV can be demonstrated with Thai sources, it would be a keep, but as things stand we have no evidence of SIGCOV, and certainly not in the article. If there is a page about Rayong schools, it could be redirected there. It could also redirect to Rayong, although that page currently says nothing about education. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment: There are considerable Thai-language mentions in student football news, mostly match reports.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48] Quite a few passing mentions from organizations hosting the school's students for various activities.[49][50][51] Not much in terms of independent in-depth coverage though. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Springs, Los Angeles County, California

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. jengod (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a quick look at the geographic coordinates seems to place it in Kagel Canyon, [52], googled that and found this:[53]. No mention of the springs, tho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherzone (talk • contribs) 2024-01-30T18:10:12 (UTC)
It's not a community. It is very much private, and it's marked Leonis Ranch on the maps before it was Indian Springs. You are looking at the ranch of Jean-Baptiste "J.B." Leonis (yes, the Vernon, California one) who was Cecil B. DeMille's neighbour. It's not the DeMille ranch itself. The owner in that real estate advert is claiming too much, as other (alas, not too reliable) sources on the life of Leonis say that DeMille and Leonis were contemporaries and the latter did not buy from the former. I don't trust the owner's autobiographical book, either. Although saying that it was once owned by DeMille pales in comparison to Wikipedia saying for 12 years, for 6 of which the buildings didn't even exist, that it is (present tense) a "community". Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I just double-checked every Los Angeles County spring listed in Waring 1915 and Berkstresser 1968 nothing is close. jengod (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fun fact! There's a Demille Fault that runs under this location that's obv named for the adjacent Demille ranch.^[1] jengod (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nordin's book is self-published and the author blurb for it, nor indeed the book contents, do not exactly suggest historical rigour. But it does say, for what it's worth, that the ranch was initially Leonis's name backwards, and Leonis renamed it to Indian Springs. Nordin is apparently in it for the booze. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

references

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

References

^ page 155

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

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

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

Delete Lets just delete it, it's clear there is no Indian springs, California. All the material you guys found found belongs at Indian springs (ranch).James.folsom (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎ as WP:ATD. Consensus is clear that the sources do not currently support notability; however, participants expect more coverage to emerge soon. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morningside (2024 film)

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

Article about an as yet unreleased film, not demonstrated as the subject of nearly enough production coverage to be exempted from the primary notability criteria for films. As always, the main notability criteria for films hinge on the film having been released to the public, and require things like film reviews by professional film critics, noteworthy film awards, and other markers of permanent significance like that — some leeway is given to films still in the pipeline if they have a lot of production coverage, but we don't just immediately accept an article about every film that enters the production pipeline off just one hit of coverage. Films have been known to enter the production pipeline and then never come out the other end as a finished film for various reasons, so a film still in the production process requires a lot more than just one hit of verification that it exists as an unfinished project.
According to the only reliable source cited here, however, the film only just started shooting in December 2023, so we're at best months away from any potential release date — and the only other footnote that was being used here (which I've had to strip) was an alumni interview with a supporting cast member on the self-published website of his own alma mater, which is not a reliable, independent or notability-building source at all.
So no prejudice against recreation later in the year if and when it actually comes out and starts getting more coverage than this, but one media hit is not enough all by itself to make a film that's still in the production process permanently notable this far in advance of release. Bearcat (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't see any notable coverage about the film or the production of it either. Could WP:DRAFTIFY it (allowing the article to be updated with notable coverage if/when any does arrive), but, as it stands, definitely fails WP:NFF. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 11:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I've tracked this movie before where it was in the Hollywood Reporter.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/fefe-dobson-danzig-gang-shooting-drama-1235275512/

It was previously known as danzig but had changed to Morningside. There was also been a few coverages

talking about it here as well:

https://www.cp24.com/video?clipId=2535086&jwsource=cl

https://www.breakfasttelevision.ca/videos/toronto-film-bite-of-a-mango-premieres-in-home-city/

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2082441795998 SunjayDash (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: is fine with me, possibly more coverage coming in the near future. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WeakDelete or Draftify. Looks likely to be notable upon release and has sources confirming that principle photography has begun so the question is whether sources covering the production itself are sufficient to support an article. In my opinion, there isn't quite enough now but there might be more soon. This is the kind of article that WP:NFILM encourages people not to create because they are likely to get deleted and then recreated after release which is more work for everyone. But encouraging the creation of articles a fair percentage of which will end up as non-notable perma-stubs isarguably even worse. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Inigo of Urach

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

Doesn't seem to be notable, the only claim to fame is being a grandchild of a person, who was considered to the position of Lithuanian king, but never actually became one. Marcelus (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Lithuania. Marcelus (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Royalty and nobility. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous self-proclaimed pretenders have articles dedicated to them. Royals that never ruled anything also have articles dedicated to them, e.g. Iniga von Thurn und Taxis.--+JMJ+ (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you know a bunch of non-notable modern day nobles have articles about them, and they never ruled anything in their lives. Also, his grandfather was officially elected as the King, whether you like it or not. If anything, this is more worth keeping than the other articles about people of noble/royal blood who are part of deposed dynasties. YT DomDaBomb20 (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm was elected, but this election was reversed after a few months by the same body. It was also never accepted by Germany, which controlled Lithuania at the time. His grandson never laid claim to the throne, nor did any major political party or group ever do so. Inigo is a completely private person. Marcelus (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use the existence of another article to prove that this article should remain. See WP:WAX for more info. ''Flux55'' (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because other "self-proclaimed pretenders have articles dedicated to them" is not an argument to keep this specific article WP:ALLORNOTHING. And I would also be in favor of deleting Iniga von Thurn und Taxis for what it's worth.

As for his grandfather being elected king or not that doesn't make Inigo notable as notability is not inherited WP:INHERIT. D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update - the Iniga von Thurn und Taxis article has been deleted for lack of notability for what it's worth. D1551D3N7 (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG with Lithuanian RS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. --StellarHalo (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comment on the sources found by StellarHalo?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for the verification of new sources provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per StellarHalo. Mach61 (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability according to StellarHalo. Axisstroke (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per stellar DarmaniLink (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per StellarHalo. Azarctic (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mayors of Lynwood, California. Content already copied to target article. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Rodriguez (American politician)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mayors of Lynwood, California. Content already copied to target article. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Teresa Santillan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Mafory Bangoura. There is a consensus below not to retain, and I have chosen the AtD of the two options which formed that consensus. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadja Maffire Bangura

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Nirva20 (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Nirva20 (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or REDIRECT to Mafory Bangoura, if same person. Nirva20 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inclusion in Historic Dictionary of Guinea (4th ed) seems a good indication of notability. We don't know what the "Bureau politique national" is/was, nor whether the "posts in the ... government" included any ministerial posts which would contribute to notability.

Obviously an African person active in politics who died in 1956 is not going to have much coverage in material available online today, so their inclusion in an established national biographical dictionary has to be taken as significant. But another source or two would be an improvement. PamD 09:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there's only one source, I've been able to access the source and confirm she's in the source, but the source is closely paraphrased. The President of I believe Liberia sent condolences to Guinea upon her death, but her date of passing doesn't match the date in the source, that source also says she was the Minister for Social Welfare. Maffire is also spelled Mafoury and Bangura is also spelled Bangoura if you're looking for a before search. The Dictionary of African Biographies also has a longer blurb on her but says she was the minister of social affairs starting in 1971, also after the reported date of death. So I'm leaning keep, but it needs a copyvio cleanup. If someone has good access to sources, this article can be clearly marked for improvement. SportingFlyer T·C 10:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just out of curiosity, are we sure that the source doesn't just have an error on the death date? I'm seeing Mafory Bangoura (i.e. Hadja Aissatou Mafory Bangoura), an article on a tailor (seamstress) by trade who was a Guinean independence activist active among the Susu and in Conakry at the same time as the person described by the source. That individual was also active in the PDG, and was Minister for social affairs. The names of this article's subject and that individual above are spelled quite similarly (they may well be alternate transliterations). This could be my ignorance of the article subject more broadly, but how sure are we that these are different people? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certain this is an alternate transliteration based on how many details match between the sources. Would vote redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 21:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tried a French-only Google search and the BNF [54], rien (nothing). Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the other names, but French would almost certainly use the spelling "Bangoura" rather than "Bangura". Phil Bridger (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mafory Bangoura. Given the similarities in name and biographies, I think it is almost certainly the same person. Jfire (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the arguments above. There is one source used, so the article clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also inclined to believe that if "Hadja Maffire Bangura" had been notable and not just a misnomer, there would have been more avaliable sources, like the ones displayed on Hadja Mafory Bangoura. Geschichte (talk) 07:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>>Mafory Bangoura, definitely a potential search term.Djflem (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Nirva20: Have you done a Wikipedia:BEFORE and read WP:AFDLIST (which states It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:Adw|Article title}}.? Familiarizing yourself with both is wise and helpful if you are going to make AfD nominations. It does not appear you have notified creator, who may be able to shed light on the subject. Djflem (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:Ok. Thanks. I will notify the article's creator. Nirva20 (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem -- I notified the article's creator of this AFD (which you had already done) and apologized for not notifying them earlier. You're right. I should have done so but forgot in my haste. Nirva20 (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John LeCompt

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

Nominating for deletion on the basis of WP:DEL-REASON#8. I researched the topic of the article, after doing comprehensive research on the band Evanescence for which the subject was hired as a tour musician in 2003 and exited in 2007, and found that:

It does not meet WP:GNG, as it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The media coverage I found that mentioned the subject was largely routine, alongside some press releases (WP:SBST and WP:NOTPROMO). I did not find significant converge that addresses the subject directly and in detail, and would provide sufficient content for a bio article that consists of more than "joined and left x,y,z band", "played/has a credit on x,y,z record", which is routine musician info that is mentioned in band or album articles (WP:WITHIN). Notability is not inherited from being a member of or associated with bands.

Does not meet WP:NRV: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interested, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity".

Does not meet WP:SUSTAINED: "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. ... If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual."

Does not meet the WP:MUSICBIO criteria, including "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability." Lapadite (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lapadite (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion 6, is a member of at least two notable bands and a touring member of another. See also WP:NSMT, an essay I wrote explaining why we have the criteria as we do. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't "significant independent coverage" that supports that the subject is a "reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". WP:MUSICBIO also states: "regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials. ... notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources." Nearly all the content on this article, which was added without sources by mostly one person in the 2000s according to the page history, can be deleted because there isn't independent, reliable sources to support it. And there are bands linked in the article that are likely not notable either. The little that is in reliable sources pertaining to this subject can be and is mentioned in a band article or album article, which mostly boils down to: "x joined in y year, exited in z year", "x has credit on y record". There are other non-notable individuals associated with bands that are mentioned in the relevant band or album articles.

Notability is not inherited: Any given band being notable does not automatically make anyone and everyone associated with it a notable individual. Any person getting "brief bursts of news coverage", especially in relation to routine band news - such as a band releasing something, touring, the exit of a member - does not automatically make them a notable individual. The other guidelines I linked also note this, such as, "the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity" in the main notability guideline. Lapadite (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 04:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. The article, as is, is supported by indipendent sources, the MUSICBIO case is inarguable, and redirection per WP:NOPAGE is undesirable as there is no clear target. Mach61 (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misrepresent the sourcing in deletion discussions. "The article, as is, is supported by indipendent sources" - it is not, and that's plainly evident by looking at the references. The few refs are about routine band news and an old Yamaha site with standard label/PR-fed content. Nothing that remotely supports individual notability based on WP's guidelines. From my research, there aren't multiple independent sources focused on this subject, not even from the early 2000s when he played on tour during the band Evanescence's major commercial success. There are also several bands linked in this article that are not notable, and their articles are templated as such. Lapadite (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Jenisch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ref 1 [55] Profile, likely written by himself. Not independent as profile are generally written by the person themselves.
Ref 2 [56] Routine annoucement that arrived to lecture. Not independent.
Ref 3 [57] Passing mention
Ref 4 [58] Routine annoucement. Press-release. Not independent.
Ref 5 [59] Routine annoucement. Not independent.
Ref 6 [60] Passing mention of new job. Routine annoucement. Not independent.
Ref 7 [61] Same ref as above. Routine annoucment of employment. Not independent.
Ref 8 [62] "the building materials giant said on Sunday" "The U.S. operations were "simply too successful to be run as a subsidiary," Jenisch said." Not independent.
Ref 9 [63] "Jan Jenisch: “I am very pleased that the Board has appointed Miljan" Not independent.
Ref 10 [64] "Holcim Ltd., the world’s largest cement maker, said Sunday it plans to separate its fast-growing North American business" Not indepenent.
Ref 11 [65] "Our North American business is a real rock star. We doubled the company just in the last four years by strong organic growth, by acquisitions. And we have leading margins, the EBITDA margin is already above 27%," Jenisch told CNBC on Monday" Not independent.

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

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

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

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

Delete - WP:NOTPROMO And his achievements were ... WHAT? Reads like a self-promotion résumé, the kind you put out there for publicity purposes. But it lists absolutely nothing about achievements. — Maile (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [66] is a profile page, [67] it is not in-depth about Jan Jenisch, [68], [69] Again PR announcement other shared sources are also same. Lordofhunter (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosea Kemp

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

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

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

Keep. Part of a set of articles on Desert Island Discs castaways (see List of Desert Island Discs episodes (1961–1970)). Featured subject in an entire episode of a national radio programme. Mentioned in several print sources by dint of that appearance and more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Described as "a trailblazer for women in Australian meteorology" in The Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the sources noted by Pigsonthewing, there is an obituary in Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society: [70]. Jfire (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. The bylined obit in the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, as well as the entry in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation seem to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV by multiple independent reliable print sources. The radio recordings, on top of these, makes me believe that this article's subject passes WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG, and I see no persuasive reason to delete. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics. Consensus to merge into List of teams and organizations in DC Comics and the redirect pointing to Black Dragon Society. Addition of the section into Black Dragon Society can be further discussed outside AfD if needed, as the consensus is there for only merging after multiple relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Dragon Society (comics)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Martin Heidegger#Language. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Language speaks

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

Appears to fail WP:NOTE. Content only ever developed by one editor in March 2011. Does not explain the meaning of the phrase, which, to my non-specialist (but grad-level) knowledge is not considered especially important among Heidegger scholars. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: If anyone does turn up some good sources on this that establish notability (and, ideally, provide at least some clue to its meaning beyond what anyone might just guess), they might consider whether it would make sense to edit the article with an eye to merging it into the main Heidegger article. At present, that article says almost nothing about his work on language, which is a considerable omission; I'm not sure there's even anywhere that a wikilink would fit to an article devoted to narrowly expounding on this short phrase. Of course, to make up an example, if the phrase only becomes independently significant in being singled out by, say, Derrida, that would be a good justification for preserving a separate article. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Heidegger. A quick search in German returned two scholar articles [71] [72] decscribing Heidegger's tautologies, as well as a generalist article [73].

I am not a Heidegger scholar, nor a professional translator, but this is what de.wiki has to say on the sentence: [Heidegger saw] language as the foundation of being and the natural disposition that makes the human itself human in the first place. It is not the human who speaks, but "language speaks"[152] and it is only through language that a human becomes a speaking being.

While I am not convinced this deserves a page on its own (and if so, it should have the original title in German), it should be included in the main article about the philosopher, especially as his work on language is quite significant. Broc (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in an effort to be helpful, I have tried to find definitions to satisfy the above objections. This source seems to address this on page 6. This source seems to address it on page 29. This appears to be a whole publication on the topic. What they mean, whether they accurately interpret and translate Heidegger, I can't say. JMWt (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing this research! I can't see the second source, but the first one would be worth preserving as a reference on the talk page in the event that we do decide to keep. However, I still think we're a long ways from establishing notability. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have created a short section in the Heidegger article so there is now at least a possible target for a merger. It is still unclear to me, however, that there is enough content in this stub to meaningfully speak of merging—or that the phrase itself is of encyclopedia significance. (Heidegger's philosophy of language in general, needless to say, is another matter entirely.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support a redirect to the section created by @Patrick J. Welsh but it would require at least some expansion; ~~might get around to doing that;~~ even though I am a linguist and respect Heidegger's legacy in this area, this is overall too minor to warrant a separate article. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All right, I'm working on it, as I said, but I have errands in between. To be continued. Working towards a redirect per @Patrick J. Welsh and @Broc. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to determine consensus for redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald, I'm very confused as to why this was relisted, there's a clear consensus to merge to the newly created section. Mach61 (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lugo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Tetiꞌaroa. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tetiaroa Airport

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

Not notable enough for inclusion as a standalone article. The airport definitely existed, but the airport does not pass the notability bar. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from the corresponding article in the French Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Air Tetiaroa or Tetiꞌaroa. None of the sources constitute significant coverage required to meet GNG. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is a private airstrip for the resort rather than a full airport, lacks substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 14:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss potential merge targets
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tetiꞌaroa~~the The Brando Resort~~ as its airstrip. gidonb (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are 3 different Merge targets suggested, an air carrier, an atoll or a resort. We need to whittle that down to one target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tetiꞌaroa I can't find anything saying that the airstrip is exclusively for The Brando Resort, just that people going there is the primary use. Shaws username . talk . 13:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to determine merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald (Benison), I do not know why this was relisted. There seems to be a consensus that this needs to be merged to Tetiꞌaroa. Can you close the debate as it is open already so long? gidonb (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Mohr

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

She was the subject of S15E02 of National Geographic's Banged Up Abroad; profiled in Bild; and her trial was sensational and widely covered (and [74] and [75]) in Australia

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

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

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Navico. I will add the merged content to the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simrad Yachting

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge with Navico, can't find anyhting to give it notability on it's own, merging with Navico makes sense to me to add there. Shaws username . talk . 12:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Santa Cruz, Manila#Education. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doña Teodora Alonzo High School

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Worth pointing out that the article history shows removal of uncited content that gave a potted history of the school, and thus the article has been reduced to an infobox and single sentence, previously uncited. Respect to the nominator for suggesting an AtD in the nomination. Rupples (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. School visited by reporter and featured on TV network GMA news programme "Unang Balita" re COVID face masks [76] (6 minute video); Philippine Daily Inquirer report on 2007 school fire [77]. Despite extensive searching that's all I've found other than mentions. Not enough coverage to pass the GNG so redirect to Santa Cruz, Manila#Education. Rupples (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Santa Cruz, Manila#Education per Rupples. Doesn't pass GNG but that page would be a good location to say something about this and other schools there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Santa_Cruz,_Manila#Education. Agree with the others regarding WP:NSCHOOL, but I do think we should point this to the place in our encyclopedia where we do cover the school. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Naumoff

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Weis

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Myanmar women's international footballers. RL0919 (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ei Yadanar Phyo

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by TV Azteca networks

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shadaab–Abhik

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per above. wound theology ◈ 09:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Mizroch, Amir. "530 multinationals from 35 countries innovating in Israel". Forbes. Retrieved 2024-02-14.

[2] "Multinationals Open More Than 20 R&D Centers a Year in Israel". Haaretz. Retrieved 2024-02-14.

[3] Shamah, David (2013-04-16). "65 years on, Israel is top choice for tech by multinationals". The Times of Israel.

[4] 155

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]