Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 13	April 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 delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fulvio Caldini

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

I am unable to find any proper citations for him. Google books has some passing mentions, but nothing significant. Out of existing citations none are any good. The first one is dead. Also as an Italian musician, he doesn't even have an Italian Wiki, so it just shows that his not that notable. Freezejunk (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Freezejunk (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under criterion A7. The only even remotely possible claim I can see in the article is has created a large body of works, which isn't really a claim of significance. I am also unable to find any significant coverage of the subject. Tollens (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Non notable composer. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 15:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandro Caldini

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

Unable to find any reliable citations for this subject. He is also missing from Italian Wikipedia. Freezejunk (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Freezejunk (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was also unable to find reliable sources. There's an article on the Finnish Wikipedia, but it has no sources either. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's difficult to find any reliable sources about him, let alone sources that could establish his notability. Aintabli (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search yields no WP:RS citations of note and there is nothing particularly notable about this individual. I agree with those who have commented and proposed deletion. Go4thProsper (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Marginal speedy. Relying on a single, possibly unreliable, source is de facto a copyvio and a BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Objective approach

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

WP:OR. A merge into Objectivity was proposed all the way back in 2006, but that is (and was) a disambiguation page. We have Objectivity (science) and Objectivity (philosophy), but I'm not sure that one is obviously more appropriate for a redirect than the other. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like WP:OR. Karl Popper used the term. But I doubt that an entire article on it is justified. Apart from Popper it seems to be used mostly as a buzz word used to assert some kind of scientific superiority. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The comment about being a "buzz word" seems to fit well. No objection to a consensus merge of properly sourced material that can also show the term in context in the target article. // Timothy :: talk 08:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, WP:FORK, OR, WP:NEO, and WP:NOTESSAY. Besides the other issues, sourcing this would require an entire re-write. Whoever created and wrote this has the super ability to make a content fork, original research, and an essay about a buzz word, all in one. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Ventures

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

No reliable sources nor in-depth coverage; only routine announcements on its investments. Doesn't pass WP NCROP Edit.pdf (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep there are many reliable sources such as:

https://www.socaltech.com/spacex_gets_investment_from_legendary_ventures/s-0080383.html

https://startup-weekly.com/Legendary-Ventures-invests-in-Elon-Musks-SpaceX/

https://www.alpha-week.com/legendary-ventures-partners-girl-scouts-usa

I have also added a few new articles.

BTW, I think this nomination is done in bad faith by a new and inexperienced editor with less than 33 edits.Amberj1985 (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've only been active since last November, you can't be a wiki expert in 6 months either. Please review what we consider reliable sources. Then you can revisit and understand why what you've listed ins't useful. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Startup Weekly and Alpha Week are not reliable sources, spammy blogs. We can't use them as sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see enough coverage, so it is notable per WP:NCORP. Kakara69 (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
where? Edit.pdf (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

we discuss the article notability, not the persons. Edit.pdf (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards delete. The article is very promotional and has the whiff of paid editing. And the coverage is mostly press releases about run-of-the-mill investments. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "sources" used aren't RS. You'll want a New York Times report on the company, not some random website. There are none, so we must delete. Oaktree b (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. Notability is not inherited from their clients.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
	from article
Routine, promo, about SpaceX	1. Kamau, Pie. "Legendary Ventures invests in Elon Musk's SpaceX". Startup Weekly. Retrieved 2022-11-28.
Routine, promo, about SpaceX	2. ^ Fonseca, Mariana (2021-01-08). "De Epic Games a SpaceX: os negócios que receberam mais investimentos de venture capital no mundo em 2020". InfoMoney. Retrieved 2022-11-28.
Routine, promo, about SpaceX	3. ^ "SpaceX Gets Investment From Legendary Ventures - socaltech.com". www.socaltech.com. Retrieved 2022-11-28.
Article about largest raises in Los Angeles (I am not on the list btw). Not SIGCOV about subject	4. ^ "Here Are the Largest Raises in Los Angeles in 2020". dot.LA. 2020-12-21. Retrieved 2022-11-28.
Article not about subject, mention	5. ^ "Live From net.Marketing: J. Crew Online Tracking Produces 5% Lift". Chief Marketer. 2002-05-07. Retrieved 2022-11-28.
Directory	6. ^ "Startup and Investor Directory. Legendary Venures". startups.columbia.edu. 2022-07-31. Retrieved 2022-11-28.
If you stop the popup before it loads, you can see this is not about the subject, but mentions the subject	7. ^ "That's a lot of face time". Crain's New York Business. 2009-02-06. Retrieved 2023-02-02.
Routine, promo, about investment client	8. ^ "ToyBox: What Happened To Kids 3D Printer After $150,000 Shark Tank Deal". 2paragraphs.com. Retrieved 2022-11-28.
Routine, promo, about investment client	9. ^ Meisel, Natasha (2020-12-14). "Announced! Top 12 Startups to Watch in 2021". TechRound. Retrieved 2022-11-28.
Routine, promo, about investment client	10. ^ Dorbian, Iris (2020-10-20). "Legendary Ventures backs Toybox Labs". Venture Capital Journal. Retrieved 2022-11-28.
Duplicate of #1 above	11. ^ Kamau, Pie; Weekly, Startup. "Legendary Ventures invests in Elon Musk's SpaceX". Startup Weekly. Retrieved 2022-11-28.
Duplicate of #2 above	12. ^ Fonseca, Mariana (2021-01-08). "De Epic Games a SpaceX: os negócios que receberam mais investimentos de venture capital no mundo em 2020". InfoMoney. Retrieved 2022-11-28.
Duplicate see above	13. ^ "SpaceX Gets Investment From Legendary Ventures - socaltech.com". www.socaltech.com. Retrieved 2022-11-28.
Duplicate see above	14. ^ "Here Are the Largest Raises in Los Angeles in 2020". dot.LA. 2020-12-21. Retrieved 2022-11-28.
Routine, promo, about investment client	AlphaWeek". www.alpha-week.com. Retrieved 2022-11-28.
Routine, promo, about investment client	16. ^ "Gemist gets investment from DeBeers to grow its 'try-it-at-home' jewelry brand". bizjournals.com. 2020-07-17. Retrieved 2023-02-02.
Routine, promo, about investment client	17. ^ "足不出户就能买到私人定制珠宝？互联网珠宝品牌「Gemist」获 De Beers 投资-36氪". www.36kr.com. 2020-07-23. Retrieved 2023-04-08.
Duplicate of #1 above	18. ^ Kamau, Pie. "Legendary Ventures invests in Elon Musk's SpaceX". Startup Weekly. Retrieved 2023-02-02.
Routine, promo, about investment client	19. ^ "当酒品牌开始打女性的主意". tech.sina.com.cn. 2020-08-20. Retrieved 2023-04-08.
Routine, promo, about investment client	20. ^ Dorbian, Iris (2022-03-04). "Legendary Ventures backs XFrost". Venture Capital Journal. Retrieved 2023-04-08.
	from above
Routine, promo, about investment client	https://www.socaltech.com/spacex_gets_investment_from_legendary_ventures/s-0080383.html
Routine, promo, about investment client	https://startup-weekly.com/Legendary-Ventures-invests-in-Elon-Musks-SpaceX/
Routine, promo, about investment client	https://www.alpha-week.com/legendary-ventures-partners-girl-scouts-usa

BEFORE showed nothing but more promo, mentions such as the above, but nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 14:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/NCORP criteria apply. Excellent work by TimothyBlue above which shows the article is refbombed with promo links. I'm unable to locate a single reference that meets our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 House episodes. ✗plicit 23:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You Must Remember This (House)

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

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2020.

PROD removed with "deprod; all House episodes have articles", which is not true. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep arguement. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable episode of the series, all I can find is the House of Hammer mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you missed the ones I found below, but I found the first two with the straight up Google link, and the third adding "M.D." after house in the Google news search string. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [1], [2], [3] RS summaries/reviews, GNG is met for this particular episode. Even if for some reason it's not kept, ATD would be to merge to the season or show: there is no policy-based rationale for deleting this article. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not a valid keep argument, but it's a valid argument against prodding, which is only for uncontroversial deletion. Something which many editors seem to fail to understand. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of House episodes. Episodes may not be individually notable, but the series is, and deleting episode articles outright isn't particularly helpful. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 01:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of House episodes, episode does not have sources showing notability. // Timothy :: talk 14:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Beach USA

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet any notability requirements, tagged since 2015 DonaldD23 talk to me 22:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Ireland. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. My own WP:BEFORE has thrown up at least a few sources which seem to deal with the subject in some detail. I've added these to the article and updated the text to reflect. While not "cut and dried" (as indicated by the previous AfD(s)?), I'd err towards a keep. Granted some of the coverage is about the participants in the reality show (rather than the reality show itself), they seem at least contributory... Guliolopez (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the implemented article improvements show that it meets the GNG. matt91486 (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Sources in the article are promo and about other toics where the subject is mentioned. Nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS.

Souce eval:

Comments	Source
Promo, not IS, Souce states, "when I was asked if I wanted to work on an RTE Young People's television show called Mission Beach."	1. "Reality TV's new wave of Irish stars". The Herald. 21 October 2010.
Article about another series, subject is mentioned, "Rival Media have previously produced ‘Mission Beach USA’ for RTÉ,"	2. ^ Jump up to:a b "RTÉ Surf Series 'Big Wave Bootcamp' In Pre-Production". iftn.ie. Irish Film & Television Network. 17 May 2012. Rival Media have previously produced 'Mission Beach USA' for RTÉ, which [..] has run for two seasons on RTÉ Two
Article about another subject, subject is mentioned, "Other new shows include Super Crew, a search for Ireland’s hottest teenage hip hop dancers, and Mission Beach USA, where eight Irish teens undergo junior lifeguard training"	3. ^ "Bye, bye Den after 25 years on the small screen". Irish Examiner. 14 September 2010. Other new [TRTÉ] shows include [..] Mission Beach USA, where eight Irish teens undergo junior lifeguard training in Florida
	4. ^ "Foxford teen features on RTÉ 2's Mission Beach". Mayo Advertiser. 14 October 2013. Mission Beach is produced by Rival Media for RTÉ
Promo about another subject involved in the show	5. ^ "TRTÉ » Mission Beach USA Gallery". RTÉ. Archived from the original on 11 March 2015. Retrieved 15 March 2015.
Promo	6. ^ "Swim Stars". Sligo Champion. 4 November 2010. progress can be followed every week on the TV program called Mission Beach USA, RTE 2, Mondays at 5pm
Press release	7. ^ "BBC Switch announces activity for Autumn 2008" (Press release). BBC. 21 August 2008. Retrieved 15 April 2023. Mission Beach is an eight-part observational documentary [..] lifeguard programme [..] Mission Beach USA is produced by Rival Media
Promo Article about another subject, mentions subject	8. ^ "Life's a beach for Limerick rower Dylan". Limerick Leader. 18 October 2011. one of eight 16 year olds who [..] was selected from a total of 5,500 applicants to take part in the show
Promo Article about another subject, mentions subject	9. ^ Wyman, Scott (10 August 2010). "Irish Baywatch: TV reality show films Irish youth training as Fort Lauderdale lifeguards". Sun Sentinel. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016.
Press release	10. ^ "RTÉjr and TRTÉ". presspack.rte.ie (Press release). 5 November 2011. Retrieved 15 April 2023.
Annual report, primary, not about subject	11. ^ RTÉ - Independent Productions - Annual Report - 2011 (PDF) (Report). RTÉ. p. 6. Series returning by popular demand included teen reality series Mission Beach USA
Routine promo article	12. ^ "Irish reality show about teen lifeguards returns to Fort Lauderdale". Sun Sentinel. 21 July 2011. Archived from the original on 29 June 2021. A fresh set of eight Irish teens have been in town this month [July 2011] filming "Mission Beach USA" for that country's RTE 2 network

BEFORE showed nothing but more promo, mentions such as the above, but nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 14:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi TimothyBlue. While I'd noted in my own !vote that some of the sources weren't great, I'm intrigued (in particular) to see the Sun Sentinel articles described as "promo". And, in the case of the "Irish Baywatch: TV reality show films Irish youth training as Fort Lauderdale lifeguards"[4] article, to see it described as "promo about another subject". Perhaps this isn't labelled as intended? Separately, I'm personally unsure as the intent of linking WP:RPRGM - which seems to deal primarily with radio programs. While RPRGM does link to WP:NTVNATL, that essay suggests that "an individual television program is more likely to be notable if it airs on [..] cable television channel with a broader regional or national audience". And, while that essay doesn't "trump" GNG/SIGCOV, it is worth noting that RTÉ is a national station and RTÉ2 a national channel. Anyway, I just wanted to raise as I'm not sure that table is perhaps laid-out fully as intended. (And, perhaps, a different essay/guideline was also intended?) Guliolopez (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No real opinion from me, I would say however that almost all TV shows in Ireland will mainly come from promotional material either from press articles or from the broadcaster themselves, it'd be very difficult to write much of anything with out such press regarding any Irish TV programme. IrishTV (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general I've found the recent trend to label anything that amounts to informing people about things, as opposed to deep analysis, as "promotional" to be an unconvincing reading of PROMO. Press releases are promotional -- if they are reprinted as is, this applies. If newspapers independently cover a media release, and write their own copy and have their own byline, it is not PROMO. matt91486 (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems notable. By necessity, the coverage albeit in legitimate newspapers, is not going to be in-depth investigative journalism, even if this show had a bar higher than MILF Manor.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tekken characters. ✗plicit 23:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asuka Kazama

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

Like Lee Chaolan, I have not seen any reliable sources talking about her besides Den of Geek short commentary about her, trailer in Tekken 8 and listicles. Still lacking third-party sources. Merging it into List of Tekken characters seems the way. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Merge There is WP:SIGCOV in Den of Geek, which doesn't appear featured in the article at all. However, all other sources appear to be sentence-long mentions or shorter. With a single significant source, it does not appear to merit a standalone page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Tekken characters per nom. The above Den of Geek is the best of the sources, but a single source is not enough to justify a standalone article per GNG. At best this is an unnecesssary CFORK. // Timothy :: talk 20:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Babajide Oluwase

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

Nigerian adviser to Economic Community of West African States and European Union (EU) Delegation to Nigeria on Green and Digital Economy, not elected office; an environmental sustainability advocate and a cleantech entrepreneur and the author of fictional story book 'Young Climate Heroes', which has impacted 7,000 students on the basics of sustainability and climate change - this subject is not notable in political role, entrepreneurial role (NCORP and all that) or as an author (WP:NAUTHOR). We are trying very, very hard, we might be gushingly promotional, but we are not ultimately notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Please kindly look closely the sources listed below, is significant enough for him to pass notability and they are reliable and independently(Secondary) references aswell. [[5]][[6]][[7]]

[[8]][[9]] [[10]] [[11]][[[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]].Epcc12345 (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete Article not satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO, agree with @Alexandermcnabb: that its borderline WP:PROMOTION as is not strictly WP:NPOV~~ MetricMaster (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]
Comment @MetricMaster:How does the source above not meet WP:Basic or WP:GNG when there is enough notable secondary sources to prove it especially this New Telegraph[[17]] Nigerian Tribune[[18]]BellaNaija[[19]] World Economic Forum[[20]], Earth Charter[[21]] and most of the listed above that has already proven he has received good number of good coverage to meet Notability.And I have made adjustment for it to be on neutral perspective and look closely each words on the article are all backed with references.Epcc12345 (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Per WP:SIGCOV found from WP: RS on BellaNaija Nigerian Tribune New Telegraph World Economic Forum Earth Charter proves he qualifies WP: Basic and even WP: GNG And also a Global Entrepreneurship Summit Covid Resilience award winner see [[22]] most likely qualify WP:ANYBIO Keep.111.94.74.218 (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is literally this IP's only contribution to Wikipedia. Grief. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP Fails GNG and BIO. I admit I didn't look at every source above or in the article, but I looked at enough to see they are all mentions, primary, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Since the above Keep post contains a BEFORE, I didn't bother to do another.

If I missed something, all I need is two citations from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Not a mention, but SIGCOV about the Subject, not a mention in an article about another subject. If I get a spam list of links I won't bother, I just need the best two.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 11:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlueThank you for admitting you didn't checked all the sources but please kindly look at below reference closely especially the first three they meets (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV) and most especially qualify WP:BASIC and WP:GNG[[23]] [[24]][[25]] [[26]],[[27]].High Regards.Epcc12345 (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:BASIC WP:GNG the source above are secondary sources and independent of the subjects.

My analysis from a paragraph on source one (1) [[28]]

Ecotutu Co-Founder and Growth Lead Babajide Oluwase have contributed to improving the livelihoods of farmers by enabling them to store their produce for longer periods. According to a reliable source from' Punch newspaper, the Lagos-born entrepreneur was among the Nigerian youths appointed into EU decision-making board and currently works as an adviser to the European Union Delegation to Nigeria and ECOWAS. He was Born in the early 90’s and His passion and interest in clean tech have been with him from his tender years. He obtained his B.Tech. (Hons) in Urban and Regional Planning from the Federal University of Technology Akure, Nigeria and a mini-MBA from Lagos Business School before proceeding further to obtian a Leadership in Business certification from The University of Iowa Tippie College of Business

.Proves it a secondary (independent from the subject) and it from reliable source aswell (Nigeria National newspaper) and if you read other paragraph it satisfied WP: SIR (Significant, independent and Reliable)

Sources 2: [[29]]

Babajide Oluwase is the recent winner of the Zenith Tech Fair with the theme: “Future Forward 2.0,” which was held on Wednesday at Eko Hotels & Suites, Victoria Island, Lagos.

He is the Growth Lead, CEO, and Founder of Ecotutu and an Impact Officer at Global Shapers Community – Lagos Hub. He has a master’s degree from the University of Lagos and a bachelor’s degree from the Federal University of Technology Akure (FUTA). Born on July 1 in 1991, Babajide Oluwase is a member of the World economic forum and also served as an adviser to European Union (EU) delegation to Nigeria and ECOWAS. He has over six years of experience working at the intersection of technological advancement and improving well-being for the underserved population. He is also the Founder/CEO of RenewDrive, a startup that works predominantly to provide access to affordable clean-tech solutions. Since 2015, he has demonstrated extensive and relevant experience in creating environmental-focused solutions and has a track record of establishing cost-saving initiatives for corporate organizations and government MDAs. In 2016, he authored the ‘Young Climate Heroes’ book that has helped 7000+ students understand the basics of climate change and sustainability using stories, and co-designed a zero-waste integration program reaching 12000+ students in secondary schools across Nigeria. In 2017 he co-founded ECOtutu with the aim to mitigate the problem of food waste, the gaps existing between preservation and transportation from farm gates to the marketplace through refrigeration of agricultural products, in the hope that consumers buy the products in the same shape and state as producers harvested it.
He got his first major funding of $5000, which came from the Tony Elumelu foundation in 2018. From there, it led him to create his company’s proof of concept to further validate the problem being solved.

The above is an after- analysis of the huge event award which he won see [30]

Proves it qualify WP: SIR aswell.Same apply to source 3: see [31]. Pass WP:SIR Which makes him notable enough. This makes him not only qualify WP:GNG but also WP:Basic. Robin499 (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist to see if consensus can be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source eval requested above:

Meets IS, RS with SIGCOV :: https://www.newtelegraphng.com/rate-of-food-spoilage-in-sub-saharan-african-countries-alarming/
Fails, "Meet the winner" promo story :: https://tribuneonlineng.com/meet-the-winner-of-zenith-bank-tech-fair/
Fails, hackathon contest, mentions subject, Does not mention subject :: https://leadership.ng/zenith-tech-fair-2-0-finalists-take-home-n53m-in-prize-money/
Fails, First paragraph clearly shows this is promo for the subject :: https://www.bellanaija.com/2020/12/babajide-oluwase-of-renewdrive-is-our-bellanaijamcm-this-week/

Two promo refs, one ref that doesn't mention subject and one that passes IS RS SIGCOV. Still fails GNG and more importantly it fails WP:BLP. // Timothy :: talk 21:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply evaluation: I am sorry for chuckling in, but

on the Hackathon Contest he won below are ref where his name was mentioned as against the earlier one which had his company name and an interview ref after he won the award[[32]] [[33]]

And this is also an afterwards of the awards publications that you termed ' promotional'

https://tribuneonlineng.com/meet-the-winner-of-zenith-bank-tech-fair/ it not a promotion but an independent coverage by the Nigerian national newspaper afterwards of the huge publicity he gained receiving the award.

When someone wins an important events or awards it brings About huge publicity that is majorly Independent of the subjects.
That publications is not promotional, just as the interview that was granted.
The publications in this Contest is significant because of the award he won and it coming from a reliable source aswell.
The award alone is a good potential aswell for him to pass WP: ANYBIO aswell.

And also on the second good ref which you also termed promotional https://www.bellanaija.com/2020/12/babajide-oluwase-of-renewdrive-is-our-bellanaijamcm-this-week/

For our #BellaNaijaMCM feature this week, we celebrate Babajide Oluwase, a green economy explorer and an innovator with keen interest in environment, spatial planning, clean energy and business development.
Babajide is the founder/CEO of RenewDrive, a startup that designs and develops innovative Clean-Tech solutions especially for people who live in rural areas and have per capita income of less than US$2 per day. The problem RenewDrive is solving is the affordability and access to dependable clean energy solutions. Currently, its business is service-based for fruit and vegetable farmers and it’s mainly centred on solving food storage related challenges in developing countries. RenewDrive designs and installs affordable, solar-powered walk-in storage hubs – Ecotutu – for fruit and vegetable farmers. With Ecotutu, RenewDrive is pioneering a revolutionary way to preserve fruits and vegetables for a fraction of the cost and energy consumption of large conventional refrigerators. Ecotutu is a solar-powered walk-in evaporative solution against post-harvest losses in developing countries. The system is designed to be used for on-farm cooling and storage after harvest to enable farmers store and preserve fresh perishables until they get to end-consumers. RenewDrive’s model also promotes the engagement of women and youth, especially in rural communities. Most of them are farmers who help collect, sort and process agricultural waste into biochar. RenewDrive then processes it into carbon-neutral briquette. This has directly benefitted livelihood of local farmers by turning waste into wealth – which may have otherwise been burnt – as well as creating economic opportunity for women and youth in a sustainable manner. Babajide has a mini-MBA from Lagos Business School (Venture In Management Programme) and a B.Tech (Hons) in Urban and Regional Planning from Federal University of Technology Akure. Babajide is a Sustainable Solutions Africa 30 under 30 Fellow, Earth Charter Young Leader, TEF/GIZ Fellow (2019), George Ayittey Platinum Prize Winner, LEAP Africa SIP Fellow (2019/20) and a Global Shaper of the Global Shapers Community. Babajide is also the author of “The Young Climate Heroes” to sensitize children about global warming and climate change. The book uses story and comical illustration to simplify technical terms underlying global warming and climate change, to enable children easily understand and take action.
We celebrate Babajide for his contribution to the achievement of some of the sustainable development goals and for helping rural farmers earn more from their harvest.

If you are conversant with BellaNaija publications they usually Frontline african celebrities or entrepreneur or footballers etc that made impacts for the week or months. Just as we have team or players of the week or months that made headlines in football. If a Media house write a publications on the subjects does it makes it promotional?

In this Contest and Wikipedia terms, it no where near promotional and by that passes the WP:GNG
Promotions is when, the subjects hasn't made an impacts or headlines and a publications is frabricated but this wasn't the case in this atall.

The two sources https://tribuneonlineng.com/meet-the-winner-of-zenith-bank-tech-fair/ , https://www.bellanaija.com/2020/12/babajide-oluwase-of-renewdrive-is-our-bellanaijamcm-this-week/ are not promotional but a significant, independent coverage of the subjects

With the additional source Epcc12345 provided below again. are good sources and it more than enough with https://www.newtelegraphng.com/rate-of-food-spoilage-in-sub-saharan-african-countries-alarming/ Which you said pass the byline.

This article has more than enough reliable, independent and significant coverage to pass notability. Robin499 (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:TimothyBlue Please kindly look at the additional provided four references they are reliable sources from World Economic Forum, Earth Charter, University of Iowa and Nigeria Energy Forum [[34]][[35]][[36]][[37]] Epcc12345 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These [38], [39], [40], [41] are IS RS with SIGCOV bios dealing with the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 09:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When you want to demonstrate notability or convince others to keep, spamming lots of refs and walls of text (especially with disparaging comments) is counter-productive. People rarely read walls of text, and when they do they are annoyed by them because they are unnecessary and time consuming. What @Epcc12345: did above was perfect: present ~3-5 of what you consider the best sources showing notability (ones that are indisputably independent, reliable and that address the subject directly and indepth. Then ask other editors to review them. No more is needed and this simple method is very effective. ~3-5 sources and if you can sustain 2 of them, you have a persuasive case for keeping.

Now here is the important part: Epcc12345 posted these sources 15 days ago, but I didn't see them because they were lost in walls of text. Walls of text and spamming as many links as possible is counter-productive to discussions and to a position, whether delete or keep.

The most effective Keep points will always be focused of the best sources (not every mention that can be found) and have concise and direct points based in policy and guidelines. And if your goal is to persuade someone, derogatory comments are going to hurt not help your cause (no one did so here, but it is common on other AfDs).

Finally, even if you do not persuade an editor or they do not respond, the closer will weigh those sources and they will have an impact. However if they are lost in walls of text and unnecessary lists of links, the closer might miss them. // Timothy :: talk 09:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2: @Alexandermcnabb: as the nom, can you take a look at the above refs, not doubting your gf nom and BEFORE, because I missed these as well. Thanks, // Timothy :: talk 09:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Timothy - all four of those sources are submitted bios in sections similar to 'our members' and not at all independent of the authour. I'm afraid none of them would contribute to a WP:GNG argument. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: look closely at this, https://earthcharter.org/youngleaders/babajide-oluwase/ doesn't in anyway come close like a summitted bio because he was profile among young world leaders. So that should pass WP:GNG along with this source https://www.newtelegraphng.com/rate-of-food-spoilage-in-sub-saharan-african-countries-alarming/ that has pass the byline according to User:TimothyBlue. The above two source alone should make him pass WP:GNG notability.

And the other three listed sources https://www.weforum.org/people/babajide-oluwase, https://iowajpec.org/babajide-oluwase, https://web.archive.org/web/20221205052710/https://www.thenef.org/speaker/babajide-oluwasethat was also approved by User:TimothyBlue , You claimed are summitted bio , I am not convinced with that evaluation because they are independent sources.

Going by User:Robin499 Re-evaluation of the two sources https://tribuneonlineng.com/meet-the-winner-of-zenith-bank-tech-fair/ , https://www.bellanaija.com/2020/12/babajide-oluwase-of-renewdrive-is-our-bellanaijamcm-this-week/ proves it not promotional sources but independent.
Finally, without doubt this article has more than enough to prove notability.Epcc12345 (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have made your points, obscuring your clear and concise post with more clutter will not help editors reading the discussion, and will not help your cause. // Timothy :: talk 16:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Eric

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

Non notable. Does not pass GNG. Sources are PR-stuff. See related AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aiona Santana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farandula Records, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael McGuire, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemente Romero Bedivere (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Puerto Rico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Eric is a reggaeton artist who has participated in Mas Flow by Luny Tunes and Noriega, Contra la corriente by Noriega, Voltaje / AC by Julio Voltio, Los Bandoleros, produced by Don Omar, Los cocorocos, La Iglesia de la calle by Gerardo, Salsatón by Andy Montañez, El Pentágono by Revol and Don Omar, among others.

In 2005, Eric's recording repertoire was joined by his first production as a soloist titled "Peso Completo", under the Jiggiri Records label of Tego Calderon and White Lion, where he had the collaboration of singers such as Ángel & Khriz, Alberto Stylee, Tego Calderón, Voltio, Zion and Lennox, (https://www.allmusic.com/album/peso-completo-mw0000208584) and even surpassed 100,000 copies sold, and debuted at #45 on the Billboard's Top Latin Albums chart and #11 on Billboard's Latin Rhythm Albums.(https://books.google.com/books?id=DRYEAAAAMBAJ&dq=%22John+Eric%22+reggaeton&pg=PA98) (https://books.google.com/books?id=-BIEAAAAMBAJ&dq=%22Peso+completo%22+%22White+Lion%22&pg=PA67) The music producers were Mambo Kings, DJ Nesty, Nely, DJ Barbosa, Urba and Monserrate, Naldo and Luny Tunes.

In 2009, on the album Showtime in collaboration with Ángel & Khriz and Gocho, they composed the song "Na de na", which was nominated at the Billboard Latin Music Awards (2009 Latin Billboard Music Awards) and awarded at ASCAP for composition as Tropical Song of the Year. Rolling Stone placed it in position 87, within the 100 best reggaeton songs of all time.(https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/best-reggaeton-songs-1234579826/) It was also included in the video games Grand Theft Auto IV and FIFA 07 as part of the soundtrack. (https://ojo.pe/ojo-show/john-eric-la-roca-osorio-conoce-mas-de-el-rey-del-tembleque-video-223028-noticia/)

In 2020, DJ Bryan Flow remixed "Raka Taka Taka" and achieved success on TikTok and other digital platforms. (https://www.lazona.com.pe/musica/billboard-peruano-dj-bryanflow-ingresa-a-la-lista-de-los-billboard-con-raka-taka-taka-noticia-1271240) Later, Duars Entertainment, Rauw Alejandro's label, proposed to Eric to make the official version with his rerecorded voices. The position that this new version achieved in Billboard Argentina Hot 100 was #89 (https://billboard.com.ar/nicki-nicole-logro-un-nuevo-top-10-en-el-billboard-argentina-hot-100/). ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Participating in the songs listed above is fine, but there is no coverage of the person. Being with or working with famous people isn't enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I add new references. His songs "Raka Taka Taka" and "Tembleque" was solo artist singles. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source are promo and mentions, nothing from IS RS that focuses on the subject directly and indepth. Notability is not inherited from others and mentions do not show GNG or BIO has been met. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 02:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wales in the Late Middle Ages. Aoidh (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English rule in Wales

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

This article is basically a POV content fork (one of a number of POV content forks originally created by the same editor) that has been discussed at some length on the Talk page. Wales was conquered by Edward I of England in the 1280s and became formally annexed to England in the 1500s. This coincides exactly with the period described in the pre-existing article, Wales in the Late Middle Ages. Of the content of English rule in Wales, with the exception of two small paragraphs about Penal laws and Henry VII of England's relationship to Wales, the content is not about English rule in Wales (i.e. the making of Wales, the Normans, Conquest of Wales, Welsh rebellions) and these sections repeat (usually originating by direct copies of the substantial amounts of text in) other articles. Wales in the Late Middle Ages is a far more appropriate place for any content about the administration of Wales during that period (it already has lots of information about the castles used for administration and control) and I'd suggest English rule in Wales is, at best, redirected there. Subjects such as the 'Penal laws' can easily be mentioned. Sionk (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wales in the Late Middle Ages or delete, per nom, covers same period and allows for generalisation rather than through a particular POV. Some content overlaps with Welsh rebellions against English rule so some content may be merged there if needed, but this title should be redirected to Wales in the Late Middle Ages. Dank Jae 19:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Sionk, this is a classic WP:POVFORK. Original text was made by copy pasting from other articles, and although I spent a lot of time improving referencing on this page, those improvements are easily carried over by me to the pages from which this one was sourced (and I have already somewhat done so). The amount of duplication of this particular content is problematic, with the same text having been copied to multiple pages, and rationalisation by removing the POVFORKS is very much in order. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. This is also emblematic of a wider issue with this editor that will need to be addressed, [42]. KJP1 (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - (second choice would be a merge) PVFORKs are non-neutral fork of content and this article has a neutral POV as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There's no evident bias or non-neutral views in the text. In reality an argument could be made that it's a WP:SPINOUT which is considered acceptable.

If anything, a far more reasonable suggestion would be a merge with Welsh rebellions against English rule for example. I am concerned that this deletion proposal could be some form of retaliation because of disagreement with the publication of Foreign relations of Wales, but I will assume good faith. Titus Gold (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Titus Gold (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Per the discussion on the talk page, Sionk first mooted deletion on 22 March. This is not retaliatory. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite a strange accusation, I thought I was generally one of the more supportive contributors (though it's all relative) for Foreign relations of Wales. There would be no point in merging anything further to Welsh rebellions because that article was created by wholesale copying of the information in English rule in Wales (which had in turn originated from wholesale copying from other articles). Sionk (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I am far from sure that the title is right, but this is covering rather more than Wales in the Late Middle Ages, so that it is not a duplicate. What the article does not adequately recognise that that the principality administration only covered of about half of what we now call Wales, the rest being made up of a large number of marcher lordships. Until someone can offer a credible merge/redirect target, I would be prepared to keep this. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wales in the Late Middle Ages as AtD. Doesn't fit WP:SUMMARY as a sub article. No objection if a conensus forms for another target. // Timothy :: talk 03:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Wales in the Late Middle Ages. This article opens "English rule in Wales is the period in the history of Wales from the conquest of Wales by Edward I to the Laws in Wales Acts of Henry VIII", while Wales in the Late Middle Ages opens with "Wales in the Late Middle Ages spanned the years 1282-1542, beginning with conquest and ending in union", so this article appears to duplicate identically the existing topic (which only has 11kB of prose so it's not like any splits are needed). Prefer delete to redirect if as mentioned the text is all copied from elsewhere, as I'm not sure the title would naturally lead to this particular period of history. CMD (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Welsh rebellions against English rule or another appropriate article that is not a fork. Some Welsh, like Grandma Logan, loved the English, their language, and Anglicanism, without sacrificing her own language and culture. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grandma Logan may be on to something there. "English rule in Wales" is a plausible search term for Welsh rebellions against English rule. More plausible than for Wales in the Late Middle Ages even. Sionk (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are saying this is a POVFORK what about British rule in Ireland? I believe the latter is a notable topic distinct from the various Irish history articles, primarily because there are sources explicitly about British rule in Ireland. Alternately, this article could be rewritten to an explicitly historiographical focus, something like Wales as a colony (sources: [43][44][45][46] etc.) (t · c) buidhe 01:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing what doesn't make that a CFORK either as it currently reads. Certainly there are sources on British rule in Ireland, but the article as it stands is just a few one paragraph summaries of different periods of history, rather than a clearly distinct article on the topic of British (and English?) rule. There might be an article about some topic possible under English rule in Wales or a similar title too, but the current article is just copying of text from elsewhere. CMD (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tekken characters. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Chaolan

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

No longer meets notability requirements, with reception pretty thin and comprised of mostly listicles. Den of Geek ranked him the #1 Tekken character in 2017, but it's not enough to hang on to the article. Suggested merge to List of Tekken characters. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There are no reliable sources that taks about him besides listicles and the den of geek per below. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 21:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge He has WP:SIGCOV in Den of Geek, lest people think I am just skimming over potential sources. In fact, that article is great for a large amount of Tekken characters. I could not, however, find other instances of significant coverage in magazines or otherwise. People are welcome to put them here if they exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Tekken characters. I checked the sources, Den of Geek is good but not much else really helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Tekken characters per above. // Timothy :: talk 03:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . There is also a rough consensus that a redirect may also be warranted after said deletion. Aoidh (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Crisis

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

Clear wp:REDUNDANTFORK of Russo-Ukrainian War with the sole addition to the scope being Euromaidan, which is already covered in the article about the war as part of the “background” section. HappyWith (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to include this in the original proposal, but this used to be a redirect to Russo-Ukrainian War, and my intention with this AFD is to return it to being a redirect. HappyWith (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized nothing even links to that page. It doesn't actually need to be a redirect, this can just be a delete honestly. HappyWith (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Russo-Ukrainian War--Panam2014 (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is blank, except for an infobox. Quite frakly, this stopped being a "crisis" well over a year ago. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I'd say merge per @Panam2014but there's not even anything to merge. – Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 20:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stuart98 and Oaktree b: it could be a redirect too. Panam2014 (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an infobox, with citations. There is no article. I'd speedy delete this. Oaktree b (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear what this article is supposed to actually be. — Czello 23:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about what happened since 2013 in Ukraine. TankDude2000 (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles need text, outside of an infobox. There is no text. Oaktree b (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per HappyWith, Czello and others. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article has no content other that an info box. It is a failed experiment in editing. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Redirect - that is, restore the long-standing redirect. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. You can block me from Wikipedia, but you can’t make me disappear! TankDude2000 (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
??? HappyWith (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a threat to commit disruption in spite of the guidelines and potential consensus. Is it based on a history of such behaviour? —Michael Z. 15:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it's already been re-directed. Problem solved I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above threat to continue disruption should be addressed. // Timothy :: talk 03:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then restoreRedirect per above. // Timothy :: talk 03:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Something to note if there is future disruption: After TankDude's comment "You can block me from Wikipedia, but you can’t make me disappear!" [47], they created this article in ther sandbox [48]. These diffs show this editor may start edit warring over this article creation. // Timothy :: talk 03:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK, WP:SOAP, and as pure propaganda for a terrorist state. Consider WP:SNOW, WP:SALT, and WP:BLOCK. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Change of Heart (TV series)

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

I think this article can be delete because it is not a well-known TV series. And the story introduction part in the article is too cumbersome and has insufficient references. HE YUNONG (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. HE YUNONG (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Zheng, Weizhi 郑惟之 (2013-06-05). Louisa (ed.). "TVB《好心作怪》万绮雯耍心机赢好评" [TVB's "A Change of Heart" Joey Meng's scheming wins praise]. Yangcheng Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07 – via Sina Corporation.
2. Wang, Jianfan 王击凡 (2013-06-06). "《好心作怪》收视不俗中生中旦也养眼" ["A Change of Heart'" received good ratings, Zhongsheng Zhongdan was also eye-catching]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07 – via Sina Corporation.
3. Shan, Shui 山水 (2013-06-17). "《好心作怪》当坏人换上好人心" ["A Change of Heart" When the bad guy gets a good heart]. Information Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07 – via Sina Corporation.
4. "《好心作怪》收视达三十主演比基尼外穿" ["A Change of Heart" hits 30 ratings, the lead actor wears a bikini]. New Express [zh] (in Chinese). 2013-07-12. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07 – via Sina Corporation.
5. Xu, Shaona 徐绍娜 (2013-05-27). "苗侨伟《好心作怪》接档《金枝2》挽收视" [Michael Miu's "A Change of Heart" takes over from "Beauty at War" to gain ratings]. New Express [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07 – via Sina Corporation.
6. Zheng, Weizhi 郑惟之 (2013-07-16). "《好心作怪》狗血收场观众吐槽是穿越剧" ["A Change of Heart" ended in blood, and the audience complained that it was a time-travel drama]. Yangcheng Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07 – via Sina Corporation.
7. "《好心作怪》热播贾晓晨遭遇婚姻危机" [JJ Jia's marriage crisis in "A Change of Heart"] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2013-07-11. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow A Change of Heart (Chinese: 好心作怪) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST; article could be improved with the above sources and clearly meets WP:GNG. The article is in a bad state but requires improvement not deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the multiple reliable source coverage identified in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Lo

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

The article lacks many references to verify authenticity.The content of the article is inadequate to inform the reader of the person. YE SIQI (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. YE SIQI (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Taiwan, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lin, Hao-li (2020). "Muscular Vernaculars: Braggadocio, "Academic Rappers," and Alternative Hip-Hop Masculinity in Taiwan". In Tsai, Eva; Ho, Tung-hung; Jian, Miaoju (eds.). Made in Taiwan: Studies in Popular Music. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-11912-2. Retrieved 2023-04-10 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Another example is Jerry Lo a.k.a. DJ Jerry. Also born and raised in southern California, Jerry Lo came to Taiwan at the age of seventeen and later became a prominent producer for his techno and hip-hop beats. He had his fingerprints on almost every early 1990s rap song in Taiwan, including "Shiam" (Siám) and "Jump" (Tiao) by LA Boyz, "You Think You're a Tough Guy" (Lí Tsintsiànn Siōnglīhāi) by Lim Kiong, "Kung Fu Party" (Gongfu Party) and "Monkey on my Back" (Monkey Zaiwobei) by The Party, "You Sick Suck Nutz Psycho Mania Crazy Taipei City" (Guásī Sînkingpēnn) and "Taiwan Language Battle" (If You Tiāmtiām No Body Say U Ékáu) by Jutoupi. He dropped his solo album in 1994, which, despite its predominantly techno content, still has a rap song called "Walking Down the Street" (Renzaizou Wozaizou)."
2. Liang, Daiqi 梁岱琦 (1994-12-01). "新人榜羅百吉'跳機'遊台灣一身炫味遊戲創業踏上音樂之旅" [Newcomer list: Jerry Lo "jumped the plane" to travel to Taiwan, a dazzling game business venture, and embarked on a music journey]. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "22歲的歌壇新人羅百吉，是在美國出生、長大，曾由美國州政府檢定為「天才兒童」。他來自台灣的父母，擔心他長期和黑人混在一起會學壞，原計畫把他送到較純樸的大陸地區讀書，但16歲的羅百吉卻在香港轉機時，擅作主張「跳機」到父母的故鄉台灣一遊，結果就遊出他6年的「音樂之旅」。 ... 父母都是擁有博士學位的羅百吉，雖然做的事在父執輩眼裡都是「不正經」，羅百吉卻自有他的看法，先後幫林強、L. A. Boyz、張震嶽、梅豔芳、杜德偉等人的專輯編寫歌曲後，羅百吉也將推出第一張個人專輯，從不會說國語到推出個人專輯，羅百吉頗令人感到不可思議，而專輯名稱就和他本人一樣「炫」，叫「I Don't Wanna See No歐巴桑」。"
  From Google Translate: "The 22-year-old singer Jerry Lo was born and raised in the United States, and was certified as a "gifted child" by the US state government. His parents from Taiwan were worried that he would learn bad things from mixing with black people for a long time. They originally planned to send him to study in a more simple mainland area. A visit to Taiwan, the hometown of his parents, resulted in his 6-year "music journey". ... Both parents have Ph.D. Luo Baiji. Although what he does is "unserious" in the eyes of his parents, Luo Baiji has his own views. He has helped Lim Giong, L. A. Boyz, Zhang Chenyue, Anita Mui, Du Dewei and others After writing the songs for the album, Baiji Luo will also release his first solo album. From not being able to speak Mandarin to releasing a solo album, Jerry Lo is quite incredible, and the title of the album is just like him, "dazzling", called "I Don't Wanna See No Obasan"."
3. Wang, Zhongyan 王中言 (1994-12-02). "新新新人類羅百吉登場衝著歐巴桑來" [New new new human, Jerry Lo comes on stage, come to obasan]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "「新新新人類」來囉，為林強、張震嶽、「The Party」、梅艷芳、「L. A. Boyz」、杜德偉編曲、寫歌的羅百吉，一身很符合他二十出頭年紀的打扮，一點點的羞澀，很多很多的音樂奇想和自小生長在美國的活潑天真特質，給人一種完全不按牌理出牌的新鮮感受。羅百吉可說是衝著很多「歐巴桑」來的，就如他的新歌「I Don't Wanna See No歐巴桑」是因他以前在Disco中當DJ，喜歡放「Techno」舞曲的他，卻碰見很多點播探戈、恰恰的歐巴桑，因而有感寫下。他的新，會真的讓樂壇「耳目一新」。"
  From Google Translate: ""New New New Humanity" is here. Jerry Lo, who arranges and writes songs for Lim Giong, Zhang Zhenyue, "The Party", Anita Mui, "L. A. Boyz", Du Dewei, is dressed in a dress that fits his early twenties, a little bit shy , a lot of musical fantasies and the lively and innocent characteristics of growing up in the United States, giving people a fresh feeling that they do not follow the rules at all. It can be said that Luo Baiji came here for many "Obasang", just like his new song "I Don't Wanna See No Obasan" because he used to be a DJ in disco, and he likes to play "Techno" dance music , but met a lot of tango and cha-cha Obasan on demand, so I wrote it down. His new songs will really "refresh" the music world."
4. Liu, Weili 劉衛莉 (1994-12-02). "金曲之夜一秀驚人羅百吉出專輯林強是製作人" [Golden Melody Night, an amazing show: Jerry Lo released an album, Lim Giong is the producer]. United Daily News (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "在金曲獎頒獎典禮上，搭配吳宗憲露了一手「DJ秀」的羅百吉，昨天又在專輯發表會中使出渾身解數，教人看得目瞪口呆。羅百吉多才多藝，他不只會作曲、編曲、跳舞，還是髮型設計師，更能耍一套「DJ秀」。"
  From Google Translate: "At the Golden Melody Awards Ceremony, Luo Baiji, who accompanied Wu Zongxian to show off his "DJ show", did his best in the album release yesterday, leaving people dumbfounded. Luo Baiji is multi-talented. He not only composes, arranges, dances, but is also a hair stylist, and he can even perform a "DJ show"."
5. Wang, Zhongyan 王中言 (1994-12-30). "二十歲的大孩子已為人夫為人父羅百吉MTV 女兒也入鏡" [A twenty-year-old boy is a husband and a father. Jerry Lo MTV: daughter also appears on camera]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "成功地幫「L. A. Boyz」、梅艷芳等製造出動人的舞曲風格的「Jerry」羅百吉，最近以自己的創作「I Don't Wanna See No歐巴桑」成為幕前歌手，羅百吉在美國生長，十六歲來台念書，令人意外的是，他二十歲便有了老婆、女兒，而且如今一歲多女兒羅潔英還在他的新歌「Baby Baby我最深的愛」TV中露臉，模樣就像和他一個模子刻出來的一樣。"
  From Google Translate: "Jerry Lo, who successfully helped "L.A. Boyz", Anita Mui, etc. to create moving dance styles, recently became a front-screen singer with his own creation "I Don't Wanna See No Obasan". Jerry Lo grew up in the United States, He came to Taiwan to study at the age of sixteen. Surprisingly, he had a wife and daughter at the age of twenty, and now his one-year-old daughter Luo Jieying is still appearing in his new song "Baby Baby My Deepest Love" TV, looking like As if carved out of the same mold as him."
6. Liu, Weili 劉衛莉 (1995-03-23). "人物掃描羅百吉/獲邀參賽東瀛音樂節" [People scan: Jerry Lo/Invited to participate in the Dongying Music Festival]. United Daily News (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "羅百吉不僅造型新鮮，音樂類型也十分「年輕」，在亞洲各國已引起相當大的注意，除了日本開始初次的合作，香港三人組「風火海」也請他跨刀做音樂。韓國方面聽說他是L．A．B0YZ專輯的幕後製作，紛紛打探他何時將赴韓發展。"
  From Google Translate: "Jerry Lo not only has a fresh style, but also has a very "young" music genre, which has attracted considerable attention in Asian countries. In addition to the first cooperation in Japan, the Hong Kong trio "Wind Sea Fire" also invited him to make music across swords. The South Korean side heard that he was L. A. The behind-the-scenes production of B0YZ's album has inquired about when he will go to Korea for development."
7. Liang, Daiqi 梁岱琦 (1995-04-06). "瘋狂日本行首屆都市音樂節羅百吉脫光唱觀眾看昏了! 表演太過火結果....總決賽泡湯" [Crazy Japan Tour. The First Urban Music Festival. Jerry Lo stripped off and sang, the audience fainted! The performance was too much, and the result... the finals were ruined]. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "羅百吉日前參加日本第一屆「都市音樂節」，在比賽的過程裡，羅百吉不但在舞台上大玩音樂，甚至還演出「裸唱記」，讓日本觀眾為之瘋狂。... 最後羅百吉並未進入總決賽，評審事後曾對他表示，他們極為欣賞羅百吉的音樂風格，可惜卻嫌他的表演「太過火」了，所以沒把支持的一票投給他。不過，羅百吉經過此事，已讓日本樂迷「徹頭徹尾」地瞭解他。"
  From Google Translate: "Jerry Lo participated in the first "Urban Music Festival" in Japan a few days ago. During the competition, Jerry Lo not only played music on the stage, but even performed "Naked Singing", which made the Japanese audience crazy. ... In the end, Jerry Lo did not enter the finals. The judges told him afterwards that they admired Jerry Lo's music style very much, but unfortunately they thought his performance was "too much", so they did not vote for him. However, through this incident, Jerry Lo has let Japanese music fans understand him "thoroughly"."
8. Liang, Daiqi 梁岱琦 (1995-07-15). "羅百吉快樂小奶爸太太么女在美國只留長女伴身旁有事沒事帶著跑旁若無人玩開來" [Jerry Lo: Happy Little Daddy. The wife and daughter are in the United States, only the elder daughter is left by his side, and she runs with him when he has nothing to do, playing as if no one else is around]. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "不久前又添一個女兒的23歲歌手羅百吉，是難得一見、作風獨特的「小爸爸」，因為太太與小女兒都還留在美國「坐月子」，所以羅百吉成了全職的小奶爸，自己一個人帶著大女兒在台北過日子。"
  From Google Translate: "Not long ago, the 23-year-old singer Jerry Lo added another daughter. He is a rare "little dad" with a unique style. Because his wife and youngest daughter are still in the United States "confinement", Jerry Lo became a full-time baby dad, living alone in Taipei with his eldest daughter."
9. Liang, Daiqi 梁岱琦 (1995-09-27). "羅百吉重圓導演夢執導一支MTV 好樂在家拍攝'搞怪'" [Jerry Lo relived his dream of being a director. Directing an MTV. Fun. Filming 'funny' videos at home]. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "一向以搞怪出名的歌手羅百吉，在「I DON'T WANNA SEE NO歐巴桑」一曲崛起時，就以各種稀奇古怪的造型引人注目，這次他推出新專輯「神聖舞會BOOM」，不但依舊自己設計造型、包辦所有的音樂創作，連舞蹈的編排、甚至MTV都自己執導，處處都充滿羅百吉式的創意。"
  From Google Translate: "The singer Luo Baiji, who has always been famous for his eccentricity, attracted attention with various weird looks when the song "I DON'T WANNA SEE NO Obasan" rose. This time he released a new album "Holy Ball BOOM", not only still He designs the looks by himself, arranges all the music creations, even arranges the choreography of the dance, and even directs MTV by himself, full of Luo Baiji's creativity everywhere."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jerry Lo (traditional Chinese: 羅百吉; simplified Chinese: 罗百吉) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to consider sources Cunard provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first source given seems detailed enough, the rest, lesser amounts of detail, enough all together for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the reliable sources identified in this discussion show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Rail Passenger Alliance

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

I am unable to find significant coverage of this organization from a BEFORE search. I do get some brief mentions in newspapers [49] [50] [51] [52] but none contribute to notability as far as I can tell. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. They seem to have the experience to do a complete BEFORE, so I believe this fails GNG> // Timothy :: talk 04:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ . The BLP1E has particular force here, but I conclude there is a rough consensus that the article should be kept. While not everyone endorsed the same rationale, there appears to be a meeting of the minds that the subject qualifies as an exception by virtue of not being a low-profile individual, and due to significance of the actions attributed to him in reliable sources' reports of the events. There is a strong undercurrent to merge the article, and this discussion can continue on the appropriate pages, but I do not consider it to have overcome the consensus to keep in this discussion. Finally, I note that the article was indefinitely extended confirmed protected today; I support this action and would have done the same. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Teixeira

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

WP:BLP1E. This is the suspect in the 2023 Pentagon document leaks, from which his notability entirely derives. Most of the article describes him in the context of these leaks, and his biography is otherwise unremarkable. It is possible that during and after his likely trial, enough will be written about him as a person to warrant a separate article, but we are not yet at that stage. For the time being, he is best covered in a "suspect" subsection of the article about the leaks, which may then be split off per WP:SS if it becomes too large. Sandstein 14:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for now, until the story has some time to be looked at and reported on in the media. This is still ongoing and it's probalby TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and United States of America. Sandstein 14:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: "3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." There is already significant coverage, and his role was clearly substantial. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: WP:BLPCRIME is worth considering. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME includes "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law", so that aspect seems to undermine the suggestion that "his role was clearly substantial" in the event; the content of the 2023 Pentagon document leaks article also does not appear to describe a clearly substantial role. Beccaynr (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLPCRIME stipulates that a BLP subject cannot be asserted in the article as having committed a crime before being convicted by a court. That does not remotely enjoin us, as editors, from coming to a consensus that a subject had a documented role in an event. Be he ever so innocent, no one can credibly assert that Teixeira and this event have no connection. Ravenswing 07:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLPCRIME does not imply no connection, and BLP1E#3 discusses either a substantial or well-documented role. From my view, we are currently limited by BLPCRIME and other parts of BLP policy, such as the prohibition on sensationalism and BLPGOSSIP, from showing a 'substantial or well-documented' role. After material is pruned from the article to comply with BLP policy, what appears to remain is a pseudobiography with an undue focus on the event, which supports a merge per WP:BLP1E#2. Beccaynr (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — The continuous coverage of Teixeira, with articles on who he is, just barely passes this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify He will be notable upon conviction most likely, but currently being formally a suspect may not be enough for an article. I suspect he will be convicted eventually, so I'd say draftify rather than delete. Brandmeister^talk 14:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE into 2023 Pentagon document leaks. conman33 (. . .talk) 14:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Brandmeister. Mooonswimmer 15:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Esowteric. Thriley (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per other comments. I'd rather see this parked until the justice system runs its course. Right now there's too much white noise around the whole thing.Intothat darkness 15:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I suspect that in the coming weeks and months, we will find out a lot more about the subject, along with his involvement and the extent of this leak and crime. As others have said above, Teixeira's role was significant, and was both substantial and well documented. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 15:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Esowteric. His role has received significant coverage. I would also like to add the detail regarding his life before then and I suspect that more is to come. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a BLP nightmare that falls under both WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. We have no idea what the outcome will be and we have people already saying he will be notable upon conviction. This can be covered in the article on the leaks. You simply cannot say his role was substantial unless he is found guilty. This should be redirected to the article on the leaks now and potentially deleted if the case falls apart. nableezy - 15:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And for what makes this a BLP nightmare, consider the sentence currently in the article: Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that Teixeira had violated the Espionage Act. The Attorney General does not determine if somebody violated the law. Their office may charge somebody and they may say that they believe that somebody violated the law. We already have unambiguous BLP violations in this article, and that is what WP:BLPCRIME is meant to prevent. nableezy - 15:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Coverage suffers from WP:RECENTISM and this would fit nicely within the leak article itself without also being a walking BLP disaster. Curbon7 (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Teixeira’s alleged leaks were notable, and continued over a significant period of time. His alleged actions were also unique, in that he is charged with sharing them casually with friends while playing Minecraft and other games. In short, he was an ANG member with significant access to classified intel who allegedly shared secret intelligence. The damage he is alleged to have done is only now being analyzed. He is notable, as charged. Should he be found not guilty, we can revisit this later. (Edited)Juneau Mike (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This entire comment is a BLP violation. nableezy - 16:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. My entire comment represents charges filed in federal court. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you are claiming they are true. Please read WP:BLPCRIME, particularly the bit A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. nableezy - 16:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article will stand the test of time. I stand by my original !vote. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it should be removed as a BLP violation ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. nableezy - 16:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that since this comment the above !vote was modified in this diff. nableezy - 19:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLPBALANCE, The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times, so revisiting this article after the criminal court process concludes does not appear supported. What appears to be fair to the subject at this time is to include relevant and WP:BLP policy-compliant content in the 2023 Pentagon document leaks article, and as noted in the AfD nomination, later consider a split per WP:SS as needed. Beccaynr (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. I would say it is a case of WP:BLP1E, he is only notable for the leaks. (i normally don't read the "Wikipedia:____" pages regarding biographies as i don't usually work on them). At the same time, I would probably vouch to merge this page, albeit reduced to a few sections or so, due to the notability of the leaks. However I would also keep it because of the wide media coverage the trial might have, a similar reason to Nicola Bulley's case because of the media coverage regarding her disappearance. Otherwise I'm unsure. e (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, you know what? Since a lot of people (80-90% of voters) are vouching to keep this article I might just as well join in the crowd and vote to Keep this article. Since the leaks began, he has made it into nearly every major media outlet and thus has a lot of media attention due to the severity of the leaks.e (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the keeps are closer to 60% right now, not 80-90%. Don't forget, draftify/merge/redirect affect the discussion. Also your !vote may be downweighted or ignored by the closer if you don't provide an argument stronger than WP:MAJORITY. Arguments should be grounded in Wikipedia policy. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Agree fully with potential "BLP nightmare" concerns, and fully support the pushback against editor statements here that presume guilt, such as that of @Juneau Mike. The former, and manifestations in-article of the latter, can be addressed by careful editing (ensuring termes like "accused" and "alleged" are used throughout). But it is simply a matter of fact that, in the modern era, guilty or not, an individual accused of such a high-profile crime, and taken into custody in such a public and dramatic fashion—they become notable, and remain notable, even if eventually absolved. As a point of comparison, see the history of the article on Richard Jewell; as long as this individual has to be in the public spotlight, WP does a potential service, in fully applying its policies and guidelines, in the presentation of the best independent, verifiable, source-derived information on the title subject. Absent that, the web-browsing public, at best, only has access to individual reports (and so will often lack the breadth and scope that an encyclopedic presentation can provide). And at worst, they are subject to the whims of recommendation engines and click-baiting/biasing practices that do not necessarily elevate the most reliable reporting in general search results. No, there is a service to be provided here, and it can be done without violating WP standards. [a former university faculty member] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:F5:FD87:5034:59D4:3581 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: my comments have been limited to the talk page. I haven’t edited the article. When I do in the future, my edits will take into account BLP. Juneau Mike (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLP applies everywhere, including the talk page and this AFD. nableezy - 17:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are allowed opinions in talk, so long as they are not presented as fact. My only error was not making it clear that these were my opinions. Juneau Mike (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read all of WP:BLP, or at least the first paragraph. nableezy - 18:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person has been in the top story of the front page of the New York Times for several days, so I think this fails #3 of WP:BLP1E. Agreed with the BLP concerns, though those can be handled within the article itself; they do not require deletion. The article already contains enough sourced material (and clear scope) to justify its existence separate from 2023 Pentagon document leaks. — brighterorange (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:BLP1E has an exception for those with a substantial and well-documented role in a significant event. Whereas 2023 Pentagon document leaks will focus on the content of the information and its foreign policy implications, this article highlights the unique political motivations of this suspect amid significant news coverage of right-wing extremism in the military presenting a national security risk.^[1]^[2]^[3] This article does not violate WP:BLPCRIME in describing anecdotes about the subject attributed to specific classmates and online users. However, the Espionage in the United States category needs to be removed until a potential conviction. I removed it a few hours back but it has returned, so noting the issue here to seek consensus. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 16:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ The Editorial Board (2022-11-13). "Extremists in Uniform Put the Nation at Risk". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-04-14.
^ Ware, Jacob. "The Violent Far-Right Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Military". Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved 2023-04-14.
^ Goldwasser, Rachel. "Extremism Among Active-Duty Military and Veterans Remains a Clear and Present Danger". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2023-04-14.

Keep: Per Brighterorange and Esowteric. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. —scs (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As NPP for this article so might be seen as involved, but I am baffled we are spending time questioning the notability of an individual accused of causing a major international diplomatic crisis and whose actions have made global headlines, usually accompanied by a detailed biographical profile. He has already been compared to Snowden in the political impact of his actions (even though the way information was leaked here was different). He will remain notable on his own whether he is convicted or not. This, to me, is a completely misguided attempt to assign WP:RECENTISM and is not doing encyclopedia any good. We could be spending this time ensuring the quality of article is high, so that people who will inevitably be searching his name online get the most reliable information. This whole thread is a timesink. Ppt91 ^talk 16:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2023 Pentagon document leaks. Per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME, I don't believe there are currently grounds to establish a standalone article for this person. It may well be the case that he ultimately proves to be independently notable, but as things stand now, keeping his article on those grounds would be WP:CRYSTALBALL. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Please see the "Strong keep" reply above referencing Richard Jewell.~~ 2601:246:C700:F5:FD87:5034:59D4:3581 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E requires "each of three conditions [to be] met". Please clarify that you understand that all three need to be met, and that you still find this to be the case. Cf. argument of @User:Brighterorange in their vote to “Keep”. 2601:246:C700:F5:FD87:5034:59D4:3581 (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe all three conditions have been met. While Teixeira has been charged in relation to the leaks, in the absence of a conviction it's not Wikipedia's place to state that he was responsible for them. Thus, it's not conclusively established whether Teixeira had any role in the event, let alone a substantial or well-documented one. It's plausible that he will ultimately become notable even if he is ruled to be uninvolved - your example of Richard Jewell demonstrates how even inaccurate allegations can become notable if they're sufficiently prominent - but, again, WP:CRYSTAL advises us not to write articles based on presumed future notability. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Weak Merge into 2023 Pentagon document leaks, the subject has achieved a somewhat significant level of notability through his actions, however this level of notability is (in my opinion), just barely enough to warrant an individual article, however I am split on the manner so I personally believe either keeping the article or merging it with 2023 Pentagon document leaks would suffice. Dellwood546 (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Draftify into article on leaks. Subject is not notable enough by himself to need a whole article until further developments. Frzzl (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article for Faisal Shahzad was created on May 10, 2010. He wasn’t convicted until almost six weeks later. I don’t believe a conviction is necessary to establish notability. One can be a notable defendant. Juneau Mike (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This individual was arrested by a large military contingent including helicopters, armored vehicles, and manned by heavily armed soldiers with full military gear. It makes sense to conclude from this that the United States military considers this individual to be an extreme threat that must be intercepted in a manner that sends a strong message. Such a massive show of force by the US military against a specific individual makes this person worthy of public documentation such as a Wikipedia page summarizing important known facts. There should be a distinction between this individual and the larger issue of the 2023 Pentagon document leaks which is an issue touching on all aspects of production and control of the documents in question. M0llusk (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a controversial article. CastJared (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In accordance with WP:BLPCRIME. If he is proven guilty, an article can be made, until then he is considered innocent. There is no hurry. Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 19:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per what Brighterorange said. Seekallknowledge (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think WP:GS/RUSUKR applies and non-EC comments should be struck. I've also requested page protection at WP:RFPP. RAN1 (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passed significant-coverage test. Neutrality^talk 22:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the last line of WP:NSUSTAINED? nableezy - 22:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teixeira is clearly not "a low-profile individual." Neutrality^talk 22:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might have a point if that is what it says. But, unsurprisingly because it would render moot the entire BLP1E policy, that is not what it says. What it says if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Otherwise remains, meaning outside of this event, that we already have an article on, is the person expected to have some profile. nableezy - 22:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single event situation. The subject of the article is accused of disclosing classified documents over a series of months. And there are multiple events here: (1) the alleged conduct; (2) the investigation; (3) the indictment; (4) the arraignment; (5) whatever happens next. Each event generates global press coverage, expert analysis, etc. In any case, "1E" is a guideline ("generally avoid"), not Holy Writ. The subject is at the center of a globally significant maelstrom involving multiple overlapping events (international affairs, national security, a high-profile criminal prosecution, congressional/DoJ/DoD investigations, etc.) Neutrality^talk 01:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seriously dont see a problem on an article on Wikipedia about a 21 year old in which nothing but allegations and accusations are included? And since the subject is presumed innocent of disclosing classified documents over a series of months, that rationale simply does not stand scrutiny. The "event" here is the WP:NEVENT subject, that is 2023 Pentagon document leaks. nableezy - 01:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument seems to boil down to "a previously obscure person is per se not notable unless they have been criminally convicted." That is not, and never has been, policy on the English Wikipedia. The article on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, for example, was created shortly after his arrest. The subject's age also has little (if any) bearing on notability here. Whether a subject meets the general notability guideline depends on significant coverage (in reliable sources independent of the subject), not age. In any event, he is an adult. From a notability perceptive, it matters not whether he is 21 or 41 or 81. Neutrality^talk 20:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, my argument is you cannot use playing a central role in a criminal act as evidence that they meet the criteria for an article until they are found guilty, because as we already established the person is presumed innocent until found guilty. So your argument that they played a central role in any of the supposed multiple events cannot stand because we cannot assume he played a central role in it. Do you seriously not see a problem with an article on a living person with nothing but allegations and accusations? Do you think that could possibly be a NPOV biography of a living person? As far as your caricature of my argument, no, I am saying that BLP1E and NSUSTAINED provide for guidance beyond the GNG, and that "notability" for a living person is not the sole criteria for an article. In fact, for a person involved in a single event, it is not the controlling criteria for an article. That remains WP:BLP. nableezy - 03:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure I understand any of the rationales not to keep; they are outdated, at any rate. Moncrief (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or delete together with Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Consistency is important.--Maxaxa (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep, for now. WP:BLP1E states that "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Based on others who have leaked information at this scale -- Reality Winner comes to mind -- I find it highly unlikely that he will remain a low-profile individual. Condition #3 most likely is not met as well given the sheer international scope of the fallout. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This also seems to be a place where WP:BLP1E and WP:NSUSTAINED set different thresholds, though one links to the other. My comment above is based on the three conditions in BLP1E. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak merge, after looking into BLP1E there is some fuzziness about where this three-criteria test came from and how literally it should be taken. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:BLP1E. There may not be much to merge to 2023 Pentagon document leaks, because sensational coverage about Teixeira should generally be excluded per WP:NOT and WP:BLP policy, and I removed anonymously-attributed content per WP:BLPGOSSIP. Per WP:BLP1E#1, all of the coverage is in the context of this single event. Per WP:BLP1E#2, Teixeira does not appear to meet the criteria outlined for a high-profile person in the WP:LOWPROFILE essay, which includes, A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event; a merge is favored at this time to avoid giving undue weight to the event. And per WP:BLP1E#3, the role of this individual is "not well documented" because these are currently allegations. Beccaynr (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Pentagon document leaks. This person doesn't appear to be notable outside of this one event. The article can be split again if notability is established, not before. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the 3 conditions brought up by Esowteric. Abstrakt (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person is going to have continued notability as with Snowden and Manning. This was the Biggest security leak in ten years, and during a War.Ryoung122 04:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2023 Pentagon document leaks per WP:BLP1E (and WP:BLPCRIME & WP:RECENTISM). I found Beccaynr's analysis of the 3 aspects of WP:BLP1E to be convincing. He was not a whistle blower like Snowden, Manning, etc., and I don't see him being turned into one. Most arguments for keeping seem to be based on baseless assumptions about the future, which seem like weak arguments and slippery slopes. If the future bears it out, we can reevaluate then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakovaryeh (talk • contribs) 05:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I do not believe WP:BLP1E will be an issue if the subject of the article is convicted of a crime per the third requirement, this article is exactly what WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME are supposed to prevent the existence of. He is not a public figure (and I don't think that's in dispute), so the article is plainly covered under these policies - since the subject does not appear to be notable for anything other than untested allegations against him, seems a clear delete to me. Tollens (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(I'd be interested to see at least some suggestion of why WP:BLPCRIME would not apply by the !keep voters - seems to have been almost entirely ignored so far. I am completely willing to change my vote should there be a good point made to that effect.) Tollens (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My general thinking right now is something along the lines of "Suppose that right this very moment, he is proven, without a doubt, to be completely innocent (because that's exactly what 'presume innocence' means). Would he still be notable?". I would think that the answer to that question would be a very unambiguous no. Tollens (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable enough and will be even more notable. Elserbio00 (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is notable and will continue so, just as other leakers! Teixant (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The alleged crime is very serious and has made headline news around the world. The "single crime"/"not a public figure" objections don't apply here. That said, BLP violations will need to be regularly pruned from this article. Kylesenior (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Wikipedia should not delete this article in the middle of all the media attention for this person. Having information sourced for reliable sources helps. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No consensus to delete it whatsoever. RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I may be crystal balling, but if this person is found innocent then lawsuits usually follow. Jack Teixeira is now a worldwide recognized name given the WP:DEPTH of the coverage involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Pentagon document leaks. He is not notable outside of this one event. Some1 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - A useful article that is likely to grow in size as developments continue in his legal case. The article clearly contains material too detailed for the proposed merger to 2023 Pentagon document leaks. Looks to me like consensus has clearly emerged to keep this article, so let's move on and close this proposal. Jusdafax (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Public enemy number 1 in half a dozen countries, at least. There should be one artilce fpr the leak and another one for the prosecution. Which for the time being is the Jack Teixeira artile, I guess. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We're at the "had a large role within a well-documented historic event" threshold here. Zaathras (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively, but probably just Redirect - Might be at the point of needing a separate article down the road, but at this point, in addition to BLP1E and BLPCRIME, there is absolutely nothing of importance in this article that isn't in (or couldn't easily be added) to the main article. The main article just does a much better job of presenting this information. Per WP:NOPAGE, passing a notability guideline isn't enough. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, although agreed with Rhododendrites that there is very little material transferable to the primary topic, which already details his involvement. JoelleJay (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The subject itself—the individual—is not the sole cause of the coverage in mass media. The primary subject is the underlying crime he committed. For instance, if you take away the element of crime, the individual could not have been the subject of mass media attention or its own page in this encyclopedia. Merge with 2023 Pentagon document leaks for now. Perhaps in the future, if the individual becomes a wider public figure (e.g., television appearances, book releases, documentaries, etc.), it would be useful for the subject to have an article similar to Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Multi7001 (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like arguing that Pele is not so notable, it's Pele's footballing that is. Or that Taylor Swift isn't that notable, it's Taylor Swift's singing that is notable. We tend to write articles about people who do really notable things. CT55555(talk) 03:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rational way to compare low-profile civilians and high-profile entertainers with fan bases. Multi7001 (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is accused of being the leader of an online group with thirty members. If the accusations re true, it seems he tried to impress the members by showing off. (Source)

Of course, I gave the obvious examples above to emphasize my point. His publicity seeking is much less effective. But it is possible to compare, rationally, actions that have similar characteristics, even if the outcomes are vastly different. Therefore, I am pushing back on the characterisation of him as "low profile".

WP:LOWPROFILE doesn't help a lot with my argument, I think it was written for more traditional ways of seeking publicity, but still I quote: Low-profile: Does not use occupational or other position(s) for public projection of self-worth (above the level normally expected within the field in question and HIGH PROFILE...May have produced publications...at least in part are designed (successfully or not) to self-promote and to attract favorable public attention. does mildly seem to support my stance. CT55555(talk) 18:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allegedly posting information and images to a Discord chat group, and/or being sensationalized as an alleged "leader" does not seem alleged as intended to "attract favorable public attention", although speculating on speculation seems to lead us nowhere encyclopedic. I think Multi7001's identification of clear examples of high-profile activity (e.g., television appearances, book releases, documentaries, etc.) is helpful to consider. From my view, it does not seem fair to a BLP subject to speculate on how they might be high-profile based on allegations of criminal conduct and further speculation on reliable sources that may exist in the future to support sensational and extraordinary claims about them. Beccaynr (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some news on his alleged role just out in the past 2 hours. https://abcnews.go.com/US/discord-user-group-secret-documents-surfaced-details-members/story?id=98661438

I think the high/low profile thing is up for debate. But I don't think I've said anything "extraordinary". I think saying he is a key person in this event (even if he is falsely accused or not found guilty of a crime) is a reasonable conclusion. Consider this: who are the more significant people associated with the 2023 Pentagon document leaks? I don't think there are any.

From WP:BLP1E We generally should avoid having an article....If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. BLP1E's guidance to not also have this article is the crux of what we are debating here. All three criterion need to be met. You don't need to agree with me on the low/high profile thing, to refute this, you'd need to think he's low profile and also that he did not have a significant role in this event. CT55555(talk) 19:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unverified claims and speculation by the "internet user claiming to be a member of the small online community" have been discussed on the article talk page, and from my view, continue to not appear appropriate to include per applicable policies and therefore not appropriate to consider as support for a standalone article.

I also don't agree that WP:BLP1E is necessarily the crux - we have a variety of core content policies to consider when trying to determine what seems best for the encyclopedia at this time. However, WP:BLP1E#3 says If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented, so the event can be significant (and have its own article), but our core content policies, including WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:CRYSTAL, seem to warn against establishing a 'substantial or well-documented role' based on sensationalism, speculation, and allegations.

BLP policy appears to encourage us to consider whether this article gives undue weight to what we can write about the event, i.e. the documents leak, which includes Teixeira's alleged role, along with an individual identified in the criminal complaint as someone who "reposted that image elsewhere on the internet" (see e.g. WaPo, Apr. 14, 2023), and the related criminal justice process for which we currently only have speculation about how it may proceed. Beccaynr (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to reply further in case I bludgeon, but the first sentence of the justification to delete in its entirety is "WP:BLP1E." So that did seem like the crux of the argument to me. Regarding sensationalism, I assure you that my arguments are informed only by reading reliable sources, primarily WaPo, NYT, BBC and to a lesser extent CNN. Going to try to semi-WP:COAL it from here, I fear I'm already dominating the convo. Peace. CT55555(talk) 21:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination also states, "For the time being, he is best covered in a "suspect" subsection of the article about the leaks, which may then be split off per WP:SS if it becomes too large." And with regard to sensationalism, even respected media are not immune from producing WP:SENSATIONAL coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BLP1E needs all three criteria to me met. I have doubts that any of them are met.

On Criterion 1, there are multiple events: alleged leaking, arrest, court appearance. The guidance is about events, not themes of events, not connected events.
On Criterion 2, allegedly sharing classified information online to a group of people is not a low-profile act, it is a publicity-seeking act. WP:LOWKEY gives more details. And the examples are all about wide publicity in mainstream media, rather than an small online group. So this is the weakest part of my argument, and is up for debate, but that doesn't really matter if you accept my C1 and C3 assertions.
On Criterion 3, his alleged role was significant in the events he is associated with. He is the main and primary participant in the events.

To delete on the basis of WP:BLP1E would require all three of my assertions above to be false. I think the guidance in WP:BLP1E can only direct us towards keep. CT55555(talk) 03:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like many keep !voters, you are assuming the subject is guilty of a crime when that has not been confirmed. Your reading of BLP1E is also incorrect. #1 says If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. All the coverage is in the context of the alleged document leak, which is what the event is; court cases stemming from it do not somehow have a different context. For #2, sharing info with a small group anonymously is obviously not high-profile; even if it was not anonymous, merely talking to people in a Discord server/image board is not high-profile either. And for #3, his role has not been established, that's the entire point of BLPCRIME. Saying "he is the main and primary participant" is a BLPVIO, full stop. JoelleJay (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a subtle but important difference between me saying he is involved (which reliable sources state) and saying if he did a crime. The New York Times has stated that he was an administrator of the group where the documents first appeared. That makes him unavoidably a key part of this.

I also disagree about this being one event. Media noted him for being suspected of the leak. Then they noted him when he was arrested. Then they noted him again in court. Almost every notable person on the encyclopedia is notable for one theme of linked events. I think all of Neil Armstrong's notability stemmed from one event. I have seen AFD discussions where editors delete biographies citing BLP1E with the explanation that if it had reached court, that would be a second event, so I think my view is logical and a way of analysing that is common at AFD.

On point 2, indeed it's up for debate. I said it was the weakest part of my argument and I think you make a good point. I am now undecided on criterion 2.

But I this his role has been established. It's just the criminality or lack thereof that is not established. If the justice system drops all charges tomorrow, I will still say he is notable. Notability is not temporary and it does not hinge on criminality. I think it is fair to say he is a participant in events the reliable sources have identified him as participating in, I have made no assertions about criminality and I think that distinction is important. CT55555(talk) 21:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CT55555’s excellent analysis. Good or bad this person will go down in history as being charged as the source of one of the most ridiculous and damaging leaks of classified information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakshade (talk • contribs) 07:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, BLP violation. nableezy - 09:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no BLP violation. Oakshade (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are assuming his guilt, and yes that is a BLP violation, and yes it should be removed, and yes it probably wont be because BLP enforcement is broken when the sensitivities of Wikipedia editors are somehow aggrieved by a living person. nableezy - 21:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking pedantic, but just to placate your specific point, I added "charged as." That really happened. Oakshade (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not pedantic lol, saying somebody did something and saying somebody is accused of doing something is very different, and if one does not realize that then they lack the competence to edit BLPs. nableezy - 19:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I’m looking at all of his comments throughout this thread, and I can’t help but wonder if he sleeps! He means well/assuming good faith. But he’s putting an incredible amount of time and energy into this. Juneau Mike (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Someone is trying to participate via the talk page and clearly struggling with the tech/protection. CT55555(talk) 21:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. There's no reason for ip editors to be weighing in here, anyways. Whoever preemptively protected this afd, thumbs-up. Zaathras (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I support on keeping the article. Any content that is in violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP should be removed. It doesn't mean that the article should be deleted.Cwater1 (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems only fair to note that the article, as of this posting, has been substantially cut by an editor who has !Voted to merge the article. I have asked for discussion of these many cuts on the article Talk page. Jusdafax (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes GNG and BIO per CT55555’s analysis; the alleged crime is international news, it has already had an international impact on the largest war in Europe since World War II, and is certain to have LASTING coverage. The BLP1E objections are absurd in this context, simply cherrypicking pieces from guidelines and ignoring the overall context. // Timothy :: talk 09:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes our notability policy for BLP subjects. His notability will never go away given the transcendent importance of the leaks. Being known for one thing which is also covered as a topic on Wikipedia is not a justification for deleting. I came to the article to find info about him, not the leaks, and I am certain I am not alone. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the cleaning of sources by other editors. Plus, th circumstances of the leaks are interesting. From a Discord group out of all places. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 03:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Texeira is a WP:BASIC pass at this point. WP:BLP1E concerns are understandable but reporting extends beyond simply the leaks and it is very likely that a trial will also provide more coverage - deleting at this point would be a WP:BURO exercise. It should be strongly emphasised to Sandstein and others that 1E has never, by itself, been a pure DELREASON - it is a reason to merge/redirect/rename and delete only when the content is all already at an already-existing article covering the event. In this case, where would the content fit in the leaks article except in an extensive subsection labelled "Jack Teixeira" that would practically be an article by itself? FOARP (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Even if he's notable, per WP:NOPAGE a separate article from the leaks is not needed. Reywas92^Talk 13:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on this multi-day news story, involving a serious crimes, with significant political fallout and other terrible consequences, he is no E*** E**. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all available information about him is either directly about his involvement in the leak, or it's background provided only in the context of articles about the leak. This is textbook WP:BLP1E. If there had been enough reliable sources from before April 2023 about other aspects of his life, or if in the future additional writing about him unrelated to the document leak materialized, we'd have enough for a stand-alone article. Given that we only have source material in the context of one event, that seems like clear WP:BLP1E stuff. Most of the material in this article related to the leak is already covered in that article, and any additional relevant background information can be added to the narrative of the article about the leak without too much hassle. --Jayron 32 18:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request for close Seven going on eight days of discussion. Appears time for a close. “Keep” appears to lead, although the pro-delete side makes a few valid points, Al beit mostly before the article was expanded. It does not appear much will be gained by further discussion. Juneau Mike (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Poulsen

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

Filmography of actor who appears non-notable, hence there being no sources listed and no separate entry for the actor. Does not appear to pass WP:NACTOR. ~T P W 14:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 14:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Denmark. Skynxnex (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Danish, Norwegian and Swedish wikis provide more sources. Dansk Biografisk Leksikon is a respectable source. Danske Film has an entry, as does Dansk Filminstitut. A search for images shows plenty of potential sources. A respected actress with a long career and many roles. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aymatth2. Borderline case, but looks like it could be improved to a short but sufficient article. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Dansk Biografisk Leksikon source given above seems a clear pass for notability, and I've added it to the article. PamD 07:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has been improved after the nomination. She has the minimum coverage needed to pass for notability from varioud sources. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Forty years of roles in Danish films; reviewed internationally. Jaireeodell (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not one of Denmark's most prominent actresses but she certainly deserves a page in Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above, @True Pagan Warrior: suggest you withdraw....♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Pratiffi

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

non-notable guitarist; article was created with a single-purpose account before the articles-for-creation process. Not a single source has been added since its creation in 2006, and my search didn't suggest that there are any to add yet. ~T P W 13:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 13:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and France. Skynxnex (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gsearch is instagram, FAMEQ (?), facebook, linkedin, then into the weeds. Nothing for this fellow found. Nothing in Gnews. Appears a poor attempt back in the day at PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree there seem to be no sources to cite (and certainly nothing in the article). Oblivy (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 13:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanain

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

The article refers to the same place as Sanahin, which has much more information, proper interwiki links, etc. The lat/long mentioned on each article are just 1 km apart, confirming that they are the same place. NS-Merni (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Armenia. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a redundant duplicate. small jars tc 01:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete dup. // Timothy :: talk 05:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Banir

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

Unreferenced since 2007. Absolutely nothing in an independent, reliable source about the settlement came up in my WP:BEFORE. No evidence of legal recognition, nothing beyond it being a location on Google Maps for which automatic content has been produced on weather/hotel-rental websites and so-forth. FOARP (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no SIGCOV of this town beyond it being a location on google maps. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment From what I see this probably is an actual village by this name, to the point where if you search for it in GMaps, it is given borders. I suspect one of the Malaysian sources would confirm this, but I cannot read Malay. But we ahve to have some documentation beyond looking at GMaps (or GNS). Mangoe (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is already notified to the Malaysia watchlist so if any of the people on that project want to chip in they can. Typically a lot of the official stuff for Malaysia is often in English so it would be found in a Google search if it was accessible online. There just isn’t anything. I know some of the people on here think that simply having a postal address, school, or clinic is sufficient for a WP:Geoland pass but this makes no sense because it would be effectively giving automatic notability to schools/hospitals/anywhere with a postal address simply for existing.

EDIT: also it really has to be emphasised that Google Maps is filled with errors and is based in large part on WIkipedia. FOARP (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This geo db states, "Railroad station - a facility comprising ticket office, platforms, etc. for loading and unloading train passengers and freight", [53] This fits with other mentions I saw that associate sujbect with the railroad. I don't see any evidence that this is a legally recognized place, and I don't believe it is a town, but simply poeple living near the station working or providing services to it. The same geo db also has an entry for "Banir Estate, Perak, Malaysia" [54] states, "Estate(s) - a large commercialized agricultural landholding with associated buildings and other facilities" If someone can find RS that this meets NGEO/GNG I'd !v keep, but there are none atm; unless someone finds sources I'm Delete // Timothy :: talk 06:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obi Maduegbuna

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

Non-notable actor, with possible COI issues. Was previously draftified, but creating editor insists on publishing. Only non-RS sources cited, and a search finds nothing better (there are a couple of passing mentions, here and here, but they're clearly based on publicity materials as the wording is almost identical). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It should have been left in draft, now it's likely deleted. Non-notable bit parts and small web videos aren't the stuff of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS SIGCOV I could find. Only passing mentions I could find. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:NACTOR. He has not had a major role in any notable film and is best known for playing the lead role in a film that is either not notable or borderline notable. It is simply WP:TOOSOON for the subject to have a stand-alone article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Samastipur. ✗plicit 11:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samastipur Municipal Corporation

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

Another contested redirect with zero in-depth sources. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Samastipur. Fails WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Samastipur unless there is a difference between the city and its municipal government. WP:NCORP doesn't apply since this is a municipal government rather than a company. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain, I think it does apply – that page starts "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise) ..." and later specifies the exclusions " ... non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams ...". I don't see any exclusion for local government bodies; do you? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Samastipur. Large cities often have articles devoted to cover their government and subgovernmental orgs, but this is mainly because the parent article would be too large unless it was trimmed per WP:SUMMARY. This is a small community (~60,000), the parent article is not too long by any estimate, and this is an unnecessary CFORK that only causes readers to chase links. If the parent article grows (naturally) too large, then perhaps this would be a good split. But that is probably a long way away. // Timothy :: talk 06:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Name change can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 16:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2008 INC-CCP MoU

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

The description of the incident is not clear and unambiguous. There is too little reference material. And I suspect that the references are suspiciously politically induced. Roci xu (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Roci xu (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was able to add several new references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per sources in article. This needs to be moved to a better name, I understand why its been abbr, but it needs a better name. // Timothy :: talk 06:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ . The article improved markedly over the course of this AfD. I think it is reasonable to give the greatest weight to those that opined after the article's development; doing so gives a clear consensus to keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Association of Independent Schools

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

Expired PROD deleted then refunded. Original argument was "Wholly unsourced, no standalone notability apparent" by Pppery. UtherSRG (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Latin America, Caribbean, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, this does seem maybe a bit too self-promotional in tone, which alone is not a sole reason to delete, but I am struggling to see how this is a sufficiently notable organisation to warrant and article, which leads me to concur with the PROD rationale. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The most recent changes suggest that the article may be sustainable. I still can't say I am overly convinced by how significant the subject is covered, but concede that a fair effort has been made to assert a degree of notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:NSCHOOL. As an additional observation, comparing the diff at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Association_of_Independent_Schools&diff=295251916&oldid=258449791&diffmode=source to the current version of the article shows that a large proportion of the current content originates with the user Saissais who has only ever edited this one article and whose name might suggest a COI. Hmee2 (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmee2, Why do you cite NSCHOOL? This article is not about a school.. As far as there having once been an editor who may have had a COI, is there a policy reason that should require deleting the article? The article has changed almost completely since then. Would you consider taking a look at the current article? Thanks for your work! — Jacona (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not in good shape, but deletion is not cleanup. This organization was been in existence for 120 years (originally founded under a different name) and currently has 138 member schools representing over 200,000 students, mostly in the United States. There are over 100 schools with Wikipedia articles that reference this organization. There are now a few sources in the article, and many more are available online. The subject matter meets WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacona: I have observed the references you have added, and assessed the content of these on newspapers.com (where they are available) and like during my initial search, I am not seeing the necessary WP:SIGCOV of this organisation. The news articles cited just have passing mentions and a brief overview of what the organisation is. The NY times article is more significant, but then relates to a different subject matter, with the only link being that a lawyer in that case represented the association. Some potential noteworthy coverage may be inherited from a noteworthy event of an association school. I could be persuaded to suggest a redirect to Southern Association of Colleges and Schools as an alternative. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Jacona's HEYMAN. Further, clearly WP:NSCHOOL does not apply here, anymore than it would to General Motors because they make school busses. And it baffles me how one can contribute regularly to AfD and not know that AfD applies to the subject of, not the current state of the article. This article is important in documenting the history of the transition to racial equity in education in the South. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the current state of sourcing in this article is thin, the subject is clearly notable. There are several hundred sources listed on EBSCO and Proquest. Kudos to Jacona for the WP:HEY effort. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, for anyone unable to check, I have clipped the historic newspaper articles added by Jacona, as I don't personally feel they satisfy what is needed for WP:SIGCOV or sufficient to justify WP:HEY, though it seems fair for these to be accessible for assessment:

Nashville Banner, December 1952
The Courier-Journal, November 1954 - essentially discusses the accredited school and its director, rather than the SAIS organisation, other than to confirm it was the first extraterritorial school
Knoxville News-Sentinel, December 1959 - this citation actually says a state senator urged race mixing, and the organisation was merely present at a meeting
Gazette and Daily, October 1960

There is coverage for sure, but none of it seems significant and often relates to associated individuals or meetings where association members association where present. I am still inclined to suggest a redirect as an alternate, though I am mindful that an organisation over a century old may well have good sources out there, they just need to be found. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Using [Wikipedia Library] is helpful. This subject returned 104 hits on EBSCO, and ProQuest returned 151 full-text newspaper results among 246 results. Here are just a few:

Critical Syncing describes a new database for the Head of School search process, sponsored by SAIS, available here.
Roddy, T. P. (2010). Frame analysis of the self-perceived leadership orientations of headmasters of the independent schools association of the southwest, southern association of independent schools, and the association of independent schools of Greater Washington member schools is a dissertation.
Team recommends dual accreditation for Hutchison describes a "New dual accreditation process" between SACS and SAIS.
Edison Prep's accreditor a factor in students' future choices describes the difference between non-accredited and accredited schools: "There are many other good accrediting organizations," Oliver said. Some are state-based accrediting agencies, others are for religious schools or private schools, she said, citing the Southern Association of Independent Schools as an example.

In short, the sources are there, and the subject is notable. See WP:ARTN. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow for a more thorough discussion of the sources provided, to determine whether the subject is notable
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 20:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was nominated for PROD, which expired and it was deleted. I became aware of this when I observed that the hundreds of links to the article were being deleted, and requested a WP:REFUND of the article in order to improve it. Unfortunately, 3 minutes after it was undeleted, it was nominated for deletion, without anyone having any opportunity to improve the article. Since then, several editors, most notably — Grand'mere Eugene considerably improved the article. There were two editors who jumped on board with !Delete votes almost immediately, in the first hours the article had been refunded and before there was any opportunity to improve the article. Since then, the article has been expanded and revised, going from zero references to a current 22. Excepting the very first evening it was nominated, all the votes have been keep. I encourage editors to look at the article in its current state. Note that it is referenced in a couple of hundred Wikipedia articles. Please just take a look at the article as it exists now, it is not at all the article that was nominated for deletion. Jacona (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As it stands today, April 16, 2023, five sources used in this article meet WP:ORG guidelines, providing significant, independent, reliable coverage in secondary sources:

Remaining sources are used for purposes of verification, including 6 refs to sais.org. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some degree of notability established now which may be sufficient to not delete. I don't feel convinced enough to do a 180 degree turn, but i'll withdraw my !vote. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per sources added to article. // Timothy :: talk 06:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect‎ to Racism in Japan. ✗plicit 11:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese privilege

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

This article is a violation of WP:SYNTH at best, and a WP:COATRACK for other views at worst. Merging the article to Racism in Japan might seem to be an option, but the facts and sources are patchwork, not coherent, so it's difficult to image how this material might benefit Racism in Japan. Which is why I think a simple redirect is in order, of course to Racism in Japan. Binksternet (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Politics, Social science, and Japan. Binksternet (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying is to redirect Japanese privilege to Racism in Japan? Mureungdowon (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instead, there should be a "Japanese privilege" item in the Racism in Japan article.# Mureungdowon (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a bit of merge. The term is used in a few works but it not very common, and my quick BEFORE is not giving a good case for why this should be a stand-alone article, plus WP:TNT comes to fore, since the article uses this term just in the lead (uncited defininition) and then meanders about various racism- and discrimination- related issues; heck, most of the article is about 'outside Japan' topics; the section on South Africa is totally irrelevant, and then most of the article is about... Korea? Korean privilige? This is indeed very bad and I don't think there is anything salvageable here, even for a merge. Only the section on 'In Japanese society' has some value, if anyone feels this is worth merging. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nominator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Racism in Japan, it's a mess. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect per nominator. Even if this was a notable topic that wasn't a FORK, this would need TNT to cleanup. I removed some material that failed V, but this is still OR / SYNTH. // Timothy :: talk 13:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, and possibly redirect. Bearian (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable neologism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abhi the Nomad

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

Previously added a notability tag which has since been removed but with no more sources added. From my searching, I couldn't find anything that looked valuable, and the lack of significant additional material since that tag despite at least one editor actively working on the page suggests it might not exist. Doesn't appear to pass GNG or any part of WP:MUSICBIO. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Tamil Nadu, and Texas. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP fails GNG and BIO. Article is sourced with promo. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per V, BLP and BIO. // Timothy :: talk 11:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Chicago Sun Times, AllMusic, Austin Chronicle, Austin Chronicle and NPR so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The interviews in the Austin Chronicle (above) provide some independent analysis and are not just letting the artist talk. See Wikipedia:Interviews BruceThomson (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources shown by Atlantic306 above, which show that WP:MUSICBIO is met. — sparklism ^hey! 09:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quadeca

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

Mostly sourced to questionable-at-best sources like Genius, Dexerto, Banger of the Day, and Fantano, and most of the rest is bunk like refs 2-6, blogs like The Musical Hype and Fantastic Hip Hop, and a little bit of Twitter and Soundcloud for good measure. Quadeca has received some coverage which is more promising, such as what I've linked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Didn't Mean to Haunt You, but it's limited. I suspect he's on his way to notability and could easily get there with his next album cycle, but I don't see it just yet. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has one Billboard charting album and significant coverage such as AllMusic here and Flood magazine here, The Fader Atlantic306 (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all promo sources, database, primary, nothing (including the above promos) meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 00:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306 - the relevant criteria he meets is WP:MUSICBIO. The Fader and AllMusic are reliable sources per WP:A/S and Paper and Flood magazine look reliable as well. All of which significantly cover his career and are not press releases or promotional material, so he meets #1 of the Music criteria. Also, he does indeed have an album that charted on not one, but 2 Billboard charts. So he passes #1 and #2 of the music criteria. PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Express Route

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

Short-lived and discontinued air route, most of the article describes re-routing after discontinuation. It wasn't even the first international route into either Canberra or Wellington, although it received some media attention at its launch, its not really any more notable than any other new airline route. A stand alone article is not required per Wikipedia:NOTCATALOG, WP:MILL, as the content is already covered in sufficient detail in the articles for Canberra and Wellington airports Dfadden (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Australia and New Zealand. – robertsky (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. As noted, this is covered in the articles on the airports and doesn't really justify a standalone article. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we generally don't create articles for individual air routes. Especially for ones that only lasted 2 years. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent rationale from the nominator. This is already covered in the airport articles and wasn't notable in the first place. Nomader (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this does not need a stand alone article and it is sufficiently covered in the Wellington Airport article NealeWellington (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Air routes are most often non-notable. Specifics of historic destinations are discussed on airport and airline articles. Ajf773 (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Pallotta

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

Fails WP:NCREATIVE, unable to find independent coverage Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and WP:MILL and WP:BLP. We need much better sources than IMdB and the like. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . The deletes were based on NLIST and NOT while the keeps were mostly based on some form of ITSUSEFUL. Based on that, I have to give more weight to the delete side. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Pekin, Illinois

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

Fails LISTN. Long list of nn names. Souces in article are primary, no other sources show this meets LISTN discussing this as a group. LISTCRUFT // Timothy :: talk 10:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 11:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Though a small handful may be notable via service in the legislature, most are not. Fails WP:NLIST. Curbon7 (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that, as per the list presented below, there are two additional mayors who are notable via service in the legislature but do not yet have articles. As such, I think there is merit to at least a partial merge argument, but the logic for keeping is still shaky at best. Curbon7 (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two have articles, and it is otherwise a useful list that is too long to keep in the main article. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in that this does not belong in the body of the article either; it is not Wikipedia's duty to keep record of every single small-town mayor. The two that are notable (out of a list of 53) is due to their service in a legislative body. Curbon7 (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the question is whether a list of elected officials fits within what WP:INDISCRIMINATE (or WP:NOTDIRECTORY) contemplates. While being true does not make an entry encyclopedic, the question about any list of mayors (or other set of elected officials) is whether they are a) notable as a topic or b) a valid spinoff from a notable subject. I am generally of the opinion that these lists of mayors are acceptable spinoffs from the parent city article. - Enos733 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lists in Wikipedia need to be either encyclopedic content meeting NLIST or serve a purpose around CLN/AOAL. This list does not meet either criteria. Wikipedia is not a repository for everything. The source for the list can be easily added (believe its already there) to the main article. Listcruft like this could be created for public officials of various offices in almost all towns in much of the world. There is no need or useful purpose to list all nn mayors of all towns in separate lists, no need for separate lists of nn city councils, nn country sherrifs and coroners, or any other lists of nn public officials not passing NLIST. This is not a list of notable mayors. // Timothy :: talk 21:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lists can also be considers a valid spinoff from a parent article (in this case the city of Pekin). It is not up to us to judge whether there is a need or a useful purpose, but whether the article complies with our community policies and guidelines. As I mentioned above, I don't think a list of elected officials (especially a list of mayors) clearly is described in WP:NOT and often, the community has evaluated a list of mayors at AfD through the lens of the size of the city, which is not necessarily the best metric. - Enos733 (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is no real notability in having been a mayor of Pekin. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put a neutrally-worded notice at Talk:Pekin, Illinois. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are two entries so it is a spin-off from the page. As an alternative. Include on the page for Pekin under Government. It could be in a collapsed list as such.Patapsco913 (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unneeded CFORK, only purpose is to make readers chase links. // Timothy :: talk 04:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list is useful. Not sure how it gets people to chase links? Why would someone chase a link if they were not interested? Is not one of the purposes of wikipedia is to link related articles?13:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete unclear how this meets WP:LISTN. ResonantDis_tortion 16:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors of Pekin, Illinois

Image	Mayor	Years
Bernard Bailey	1849–50	Resigned at city council's request
Abram Woolston	1850–51	Won in a special election
James Harriott	1851–52
Middleton Tackaberry	1853, 1857
Merrill C. Young	1854–55
Leonard H. Wilkey	1856
Peter Weyrich	1858–59
Isaac E. Leonard	1860–61
Benjamin S. Prettyman	1862
Samuel E. Barber	1863
Thomas C. Reeves	1864
William W. Sellers	1865–66	Resigned to accept an appointment to the state legislature
J. Cohenour	1865–66	Elected to the state legislature
Columbus J.D. Rupert	1867–68	Appointed
William T. Edds	1869	Appointed
David T. Thompson	1870–71
John Stoltz	1872
John Herget	1873–74
Columbus R. Cummings	1875–76	First mayor to serve under a new two-year term length
Abial B. Sawyer	1877–78
Herman W. Hippen	1879–80
Thomas Cooper	1881–84, 1891–92
John L. Smith	1885–86
Albert R. Warren	1887–88
Ernest F. Unland	1889–90
Everett W. Wilson	1893–94, 1899–1900
Charles Duisdieker	1895–96
Daniel Sapp	1897–98, 1905–07
William J. Conzelman	1901–04, 1909–11
Henry Schnellbacher	1907–09

Commission system^[1]

Name	Term	Notes
Charles Duisdieker	1911–1915	First mayor elected under the commission system
Charles Schaefer	1915–1919
William Schurman	1919–1923
Benjamin F. Michael	1923–1927, 1931
L.B. Kinsey	1927–1931
L. Russell	1931–1935	Appointed to fill vacancy until next election
W.E. Schurman	1935–1939
John Norman Shade	1939–1954	Resigned in April 1954
John J. McGinty	1954–1955	Appointed to fill vacancy until next election
Norman E. Wolfer	1955–1959
John Norman Shade	1959–1966	Resigned in October 1966
William L. Waldmeier	1966–1979	Appointed in 1966 and later elected in 1967
Willard E. Birkmeier	1979–1987
Larry Homerin	1987–1991
Don Williams	1991–1995

Council-manager system

David Tebben	1995–2003	First mayor elected under the council manager form of government
Lyndell Howard	2003–2005	Removed from office upon felony official misconduct conviction
Frank Mackaman	2005–2007	Appointed to fill Howard vacancy
David Tebben	2007–2008	Died in office December 12, 2008
Rusty Dunn	2008–2011	Appointed to fill Tebben vacancy
Laurie Barra	2011–2015	First female mayor in Pekin history
John McCabe	2015–2019
Mark Luft	2019–present

References

^ Renner, Chic; et al. (1974). Pekin Sesquicentennial: A History, 1824–1974. Pekin Chamber of Commerce. p. 162.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any further comments on the WP:SPINOFF argument?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I don't think it is important that the people on the list are not individually notable. I am assuming good faith for online sources. I am not certain of this part (hence the "weak") but I don't think the sources are primary. Most importantly, this seems like useful encyclopedic information. This is exactly the sort of thing I can imagine historians wanting to read about. I know there is a culture of requiring three sources, but I don't think that is a rule. CT55555(talk) 01:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources showing this meets LISTN? // Timothy :: talk 01:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "I am assuming good faith for online sources" I meant offline sources. It seems like they contain lists, the way it is presented. Do you agree that is fair? Or am I missing something? CT55555(talk) 01:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To reiterate, the only reason why four (out of the ~50 listed) are notable is not because of their tenures as mayors of this exceptionally small town, but because they instead held a separate WP:NPOL-conferring office. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate database of every single small-town mayor that's ever lived. Curbon7 (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 House (season 7)#Episodes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recession Proof (House)

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

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2011. Only one review found.

PROD removed with "deprod; all House episodes have articles", which is not true. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep arguement. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House (season 7)#Episodes. BD2412 T 03:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not a valid keep argument, but it's a valid argument against prodding, which is only for uncontroversial deletion. Something which many editors seem to fail to understand. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a non-notable episode, based on the lack of sourcing in the article and that I can't find any either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

or Redirect is fine as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DonaldD23 talk to me 00:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the Twilight

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear notable, tagged in March 2023. Nothing found in a BEFORE DonaldD23 talk to me 00:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennings, Saint Mary

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

per WP:GEOLAND it's all fading away^talk 00:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. it's all fading away^talk 00:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Caribbean and Antigua and Barbuda. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Strong keep per WP:GEOLAND. Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Grutness...wha? 03:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW -if you need to know whether it's a real place, then this might help. Grutness...wha? 03:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a search for sources indicates that the article passes WP:GEOLAND (populated, legally recognized place) and the sources cited by Grutness also show that this town is real/notable. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND its a settlement with census data. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND // Timothy :: talk 14:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:GEOLAND -- Wesoree ^(T·C) 14:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Town of Nazareth

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

Does not appear notable, tagged in March 2023. Nothing found in a BEFORE DonaldD23 talk to me 00:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Moving Picture World has a long plot summary and a review (Apr 4, 1914) (both quoted on the IMdb page, fwiw), regretting the fact that the film was in two reels. The two reels are advertised here. Seems notable with enough material for a page.— MY, OH, MY! 22:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "The Town of Nazareth". The Moving Picture World. 20 (1): 59. 1914-04-04. Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive.
  The journal article was published in 1914, so is in the Wikipedia:Public domain. The journal article notes: "The Town of Nazareth (American), March 30.—A two-part offering that would have been better in one reel. The theme is a double love story, of a poet who lost in love, and of the son of the girl he loved who, refusing the poet, married a dyer of the Vermont village, Nazreth. The poet becomes famous; the dyer, without good reason, accounts himself a failure and runs away and dies. How the son is sent to Harvard and after attempting to make good in the city comes home and makes business come to him is the chief interest in the second reel. There are crude things in it a-plenty and good, things, too. The atmosphere of the country town makes the story interesting. The acting is fair and the photography acceptable. A fair offering; a bit above the commercial plane."
2. "The Town of Nazareth". The Chicago Daily Tribune. Vol. 73, no. 81. 1914-04-06. p. 9. ProQuest 173750956. Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive.
  The review was published in 1914, so is in the Wikipedia:Public domain. The review notes: ""The Town of Nazareth." —American. This is Emerson's mouse trap theory done into pictures. The young man who goes to seek his fortune in the city is called back by his mother's grief at his absence. So he returns to his native village and conducts the paternal business of cleaning and dyeing, discovering a formula for a color process that is unique and greatly prized; so much so, in fact, that it draws a great cloth manufacturer to the lad's small shop with an offer of a splendid position in his works. The cloth manufacturer has a daughter, too, whom the young man has met before and already fallen in love with, so the affair is arranged very happily and profiably for every one."
3. "The Town of Nazareth". The Moving Picture World. Vol. 19, no. 13. 1914-03-28. pp. 1738, 1740. Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive.
  The article was published in 1914, so is in the Wikipedia:Public domain. The article notes:
  The Town of Nazareth (2 parts—Mar. 30)—Rosney, as a young man, is jilted by the girl he loves, in favor of another. As years roll by he keeps an ever watchful eye over the welfare of the girl, Mary, at the same time achieving a success that brings him to the attention of the outside world. When Mary's husband, failing to win success in the town, and losing the money saved for his son, Frank's college education, complains that no success can be won in Nazareth, and plans to go to the city. Rosney remembers the old saying, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth," and attempts to dissuade him. He fails. Walter, the husband, sneaks away and is not heard from. Rosney, unbeknown to Mary, succeeds in replacing the missing college money, and her grief is tempered by the knowledge that Frank will get his college education.
  Frank returns from college and takes up some experiments which results in the discovery of a dyeing process much desired by Wilson, a large manufacturer of cloth. Frank, of course, does not know the value of his discovery, nor is Wilson aware of it, but Wilson visits Rosney with his daughter, Miriam, and an attachment springs up between Miriam and Frank. At this time definite news of the disgraceful death of her husband is brought to Mary, and the shock results in a serious illness. Just as she is getting better Miriam foolishly dares Frank to come to the city and make good. He takes the dare and leaves against his mother's pleas—an additional shock that brings a relapse.
  Frank, in the city with Miriam, receives word of his mother's condition and has his eyes opened to his selfishness, and, renouncing Miriam, he hurries home. Rosney, sensing Frank's trouble, explains to him through the immortal "mousetrap," saying he can win success in Nazareth as well as elsewhere, and, sure enough, a coat of Miriam's, left to be dyed, reveals to Wilson the existence of some better process. The threads are quickly gathered together, even Rosney receiving his reward when after years Mary looks up in his eyes with a new and greater love than she had ever known before."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. "Film Flashes". Variety. Vol. 34, no. 3. 1914-03-20. p. 23. Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive.
    The article was published in 1914, so is in the Wikipedia:Public domain. The article notes: "Now that the American Film Co. has turned out "The Cricket on the Hearth" under its Flying A trademark, it's going to make another of Charles Dickens' masterpieces into movies, having placed "The Old Curiosity Shop" in camera rehearsal. The Flying A will release Marc Edmund Jones dramatic photoplay, "The Town of Nazareth," March 30 with Edward Coxen, Winifred Greenwood, George Field and Charlotte Burton in the principal roles."
  2. Braff, Richard E. (2002). The Braff Silent Short Film Working Papers: Over 25,000 Films, 1903–1929, Alphabetized and Indexed. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 516. ISBN 0-7864-1031-0. Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "The Town of Nazareth. 1914-03-22. L: 2R. P: American. A: Marc Edmund Jones. C: Winnifred Greenwood, Ed Coxen, George Field, Jean Durrell, William Bertram, Charlotte Burton, Albert Cavens."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Town of Nazareth to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per new citations by Cunard DonaldD23 talk to me 18:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . After examination of the paywalled sources was presented, consensus seems to have changed to deletion. Aoidh (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Omar (footballer)

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

Since WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, GNG must be met. This doesn't come close. Was draftified for improvement, but returned without any improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], and [62], among many many more Swedish and Arabic sources. Young player with ongoing career who is already youth international. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability, although the HN sources are paywalled. Giant Snowman 19:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per significant coverage above.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first source listed is an interview with some independent commentary, the fourth is obviously non-independent club promo, the fifth source is pure Q&A interview/routine transaction coverage, and every other source is paywalled. Even if the first source was considered SIGCOV (I do not think it is), unless editors have access to the paywalled Swedish newspapers I do not see how anyone can claim GNG is met. If we don't know what's in those sources we can't evaluate how significant they are. JoelleJay (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in the article do not show N. BEFORE didn't show anything that is IS RS with SIGCOV showing N, database, primary, promo, stats, etc. Source evail:

Interview, not IS RS :: https://kirkuknow.com/ar/news/64036
Part promo, part interview, not IS RS (free trial to read article) :: https://www.hn.se/sport/fff/fr%C3%A5n-reserv-till-superettankval-som-f%C3%B6rstaval-njuter-av-varje-sekund-1.84334383
ROUTINE, not SIGCOV :: https://www.hn.se/sport/fff/nadeem-omar-kastas-rakt-in-i-hetluften-efter-tim-erlandssons-skada-1.82811884
Interview, not IS RS :: https://falkenbergsff.se/nadeem-omar-till-iraks-u19-landslag/
ROUTINE, not SIGCOV :: https://www.falkenbergsnyheter.se/ettan-sodra-falkenbergs-ff-fotboll/nadeem-omar-lamnar-falkenbergs-ff/118399
ROUTINE, not SIGCOV :: https://www.hn.se/sport/fff/nadeem-omar-om-stormatchen-mot-gais-1.83341888
ROUTINE, not SIGCOV :: https://www.hn.se/sport/fff/erlandsson-magnetr%C3%B6ntgad-nadeem-omar-f%C3%A5r-chansen-1.82737678
ROUTINE, not SIGCOV :: https://www.hallandsposten.se/sport/fotboll/is-halmia-f%C3%B6rst%C3%A4rker-med-landslagsm%C3%A5lvakt-1.94773565

WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 01:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources go into his background quite a bit, and the coverage is not routine. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, now that it's apparent the paywalled sources are routine. JoelleJay (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I heavily doubt the user above actually had access to the paywalled sources... Even if he did, the second source is definitely not routine and the first source definitely is reliable and those are just the first two sources... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to the paywalled sources? JoelleJay (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A user tossing around the word "routine" without any explanation as to why isn't really proof of that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus (and had closed it as such), but a valid question was raised about something I missed so relisting to get it back on the logs. It doesn't necessarily need to run another seven days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about footballer who has never played at a level higher than the Swedish third division, and which appears to fail WP:GNG. I could not locate any significant coverage online other than what is linked above. The links above that I can access are routine/trivial, and the Hallands Nyheter/Hallandsposten newspaper articles that are paywalled may or may not be. The headlines don't suggest that they are in-depth, as they look like a club signing announcement and a note about another player's injury that leads to Omar's promotion to the club's first team. This is nowhere near what is required to meet the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith Energy

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

Oil and gas company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks independent coverage meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tunisia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and CORP.

Source eval:

Primary	1. "About". Zenith Energy Ltd. Retrieved 2023-02-10.
Stock exchange listing	London Stock Exchange". www.londonstockexchange.com. Retrieved 2023-02-10.
Stock exchange listing	Euronext exchange Live quotes". live.euronext.com. Retrieved 2023-02-10.
Stock exchange listing	4. ^ "Zenith Energy (CA) Share Price - LON:ZEN Stock Research". Stockopedia. Retrieved 2023-02-10.
Primary	5. ^ "Our Team". Zenith Energy Ltd. Retrieved 2023-02-10.
Industry promo	6. ^ "Zenith Energy - The Energy Year". 2021-11-03. Retrieved 2023-02-10.
Annual report, primary	7. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Energy, Zenith (March 31, 2021). "Zenith Energy Ltd. Annual Report and Financial Statements" (PDF) – via annualreports.
Routine news sourced from company	8. ^ "Tunisia: Zenith Energy to restart ROB-1 oil well on June 8". African Manager. 2022-06-02. Retrieved 2023-02-10.
Rountine morning star report	9. ^ "IN BRIEF: Zenith Energy gets payment for oil production in Congo". MorningstarUK. Retrieved 2023-02-10.
Failed V, 404	10. ^ News, Alliance (2022-12-02). "Zenith Energy progresses Italian concessions on bureaucratic approval". MorningstarUK. Retrieved 2023-02-10. {{cite web}}: \|last= has generic name (help)
Routine industry news	11. ^ "Zenith Energy submits offer for biggest oilfield in Benin". intellinews.com. 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2023-02-10.

BEFORE showed more of the same, nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS. // Timothy :: talk 17:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine coverage of an obscure, run of the mill company does not mean it passes WP:NCORP. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] The Editorial Board (2022-11-13). "Extremists in Uniform Put the Nation at Risk". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-04-14.

[2] Ware, Jacob. "The Violent Far-Right Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Military". Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved 2023-04-14.

[3] Goldwasser, Rachel. "Extremism Among Active-Duty Military and Veterans Remains a Clear and Present Danger". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2023-04-14.

[SESQUI-4] Renner, Chic; et al. (1974). Pekin Sesquicentennial: A History, 1824–1974. Pekin Chamber of Commerce. p. 162.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]