Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 17 July 19 >

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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean M Nelson[edit]

Jean M Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, borderline WP:A7 case. The currently-cited sources are IMDb and an unbylined, hyperbolicly promotional piece ([1]). I was not able to find any additional coverage online, having searched for both the middle-initial and no-middle-initial form of the subject's name plus other keywords on DuckDuckGo and ProQuest. signed, Rosguill talk 23:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Haiti, and New Jersey. signed, Rosguill talk 23:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also could not find anything (aside from press releases and other publications with the same copy-and-pasted promotional material on IMDb and the londonfm site). Does not meet the GNG. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 00:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello all. Am still building more information about Jean M Nelson and I would request that the page should not be deleted. More informations loading on a weekly basis and soon you will have enough to allow it stay. Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugo M. Simon (talk • contribs) 04:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete paid for vanity spam about a non-notable artist sourced to the usual blackhat SEO and nothing in the way of actual RS is available. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He is visible online but in sources that are clearly paid promo announcements or self-created puff pieces. Independent and impartial journalists would not say things like "certainly one of the most forward-thinking personalities within today's music and film industries" ([2]), "An Inspirational Rising Star Among Our Generation" ([3]), or "Impact of personal experiences on professional excellence!" ([4]). Kudos to his hard-working publicist, who has mastered the art of repeating the same basic biographical information with well-placed peacock words across the Internet. But that's not what Wikipedia is for. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place like Who's who where you can get included by paying for being included.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search of Google shows nothing that would support a claim of notability and there's nothing meaningful in the artice itself. Alansohn (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn’t seem to meet GNG. DingleJick Talk 17:36, 25 July 2022 (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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 04:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan MacMasters[edit]

Alan MacMasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Having been pointed to this article, I am having no luck in verifying it. One would think that the invention of the electric toaster would be well-documented enough that searching for this fellow should turn up plenty of hits, but if I search for 20th century book sources, I get nothing, and the first web hit I get is from [5] which Google claims dates from 2000, but which Wayback suggests may have appeared in 2007 or later. Everything else seems to trace back to a 2012 Daily Mirror "fun facts" kind of article, which isn't something I would take as a reliable source. The authenticity of the photo is likewise dubious. I don't think this was written as a hoax here, but I think it's untrue. Mangoe (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was unable to find anything except "Alan MacMasters invented the toaster, and it later became the Eclipse". That alone doesn't make an article as it is not significant enough coverage. None of the article sources provide significant coverage either. This person is not notable and does not pass the WP:GNG. I was also unable to verify the story about how he invented the toaster. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 00:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I did not attempt to verify that MacMasters invented the toaster because I did not find it necessary to make an argument for deletion. The article may very well be a hoax. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 18:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name was added to the toaster article on 6 February 2012 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=475380799&oldid=474776973&title=Toaster); the Mirror article was published on 1 September 2012. The summary says "revert vandalism" but the text that was there before https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toaster&diff=387113580&oldid=387111783 ("It is unknown who invented the first electric bread toaster") was not restored, instead new text was added mentioning Alan MacMasters, and no source was cited. Peter James (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't tell about the individual itself, so won't vote on this AfD, but the photo was almost certainly faked, as someone on reddit has admitted to doing so. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 09:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable sources, this does sound like the kind of thing where a lone sentence in the toaster article might have been enough for Google to give it as an answer to "who invented the toaster" whenever a hasty journalist was looking for a good opening line for an article about toasters, from 2012 onwards. All sources used in the article appear to be that kind of throwaway mention that post-date that, and there are long, detailed additions which don't appear in the cited sources (the 2018 Winn book only includes the words "based on an idea by a Scotsman, Alan MacMasters" in passing while talking about Crompton). I can't find any reliable sources that confirm that Alan MacMasters existed or invented the toaster. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We clearly do not have GNG quality sources to show notability. At least some of what is here was faked, and the fact that people faked those parts makes me hard pressed to believe anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have always been suspicious of that image. It was uploaded by the creator as part of the original article. There does not appear to be documentation to support GNG. I would be interested in comments from the author/uploader.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly a hoax by the author. I have no idea whether they are the same person as the original February 2012 IP who added the name to the toaster article in the first place (which is older than the Daily Mirror story, which dates to September 2012) but the fact that they continued to add clearly ficitious references to this person to the article over five years later, such as this one to "Ogura toast" from 2018 show that they clearly knew it was a hoax. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and block creator - almost certainly a blatant hoax. You can tell from the photoshopped image of the person. --MuZemike 18:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Out of curiosity, how can you tell that the image is photoshopped? Patachonica (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One way you can tell it is just looks...off. The "tear" is a little too perfect. Tears aren't the same width from one side to another. But you can also look at the metadata and see that it was run through Adobe Photoshop CS5 on a Mac, can tell they uploaded it from an image into a photoshop project, tweaked it (literally "saved, converted, derived, saved, saved, converted, derived, saved, saved, saved"), and then imported it back into a photo. Looks like they took a photo, made it look "aged" with a filter, added a "torn image" stock photo layer on top to make it look like an old torn photo. - Aoidh (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User has created a number of articles and has uploaded numerous images to commons. A fuller investigation may be appropriate.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Airdisaster.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Airdisaster.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Site was referenced a couple times in the context of a couple airline crashes, but doesn't seem to have had lasting notability on its own. Nothing better found in a WP:BEFORE. Previous AFD way back in 2005 closed as "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Websites. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Airdisaster.com was little more than a blip among aviation safety sources in the early Web 2.0, and it wasn't even that authoritative. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. I see a bunch of citations to this site in Google Books, News etc., but next to no actual descriptions that could be used to write meaningful prose on it. Glades12 (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2022 (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. A talk page discussion about a merger or redirect would probably be the next best step Star Mississippi 01:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University of Muri[edit]

University of Muri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. This is WP:OR based on summarizing a primary source. WP:BEFORE shows little more than bare mentions. Jontesta (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Piotrus My assessment was that the essay An Introduction to One-Way Street was mainly about One Way Street (1928 book). I didn't see enough coverage about this element in the essay, and the Wikipedia article doesn't mention it at all. But the essay's mentions of Muri could be covered there (though I don't see much point). Jontesta (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: is there a possible merge location, e.g. would One Way Street (1928 book), Walter Benjamin or Gershom Scholem be appropriate? Alduin2000 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alduin2000 The only article that mentions it at present is Gershom Scholem, with a citation needed. So presumably this would be a good place to merge at least a reference confirming its existence. And probably redirect this. Reconsidering what little there is in our stub, and the rather poor sourcing, I am now leaning towards redirect (and replacing the cite needed with the academic ref cited). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are more reliable secondary sources available that the article doesn't use but they are mostly passing mentions. Most in depth I could find is this article [7]. I think a merge and redirect is probably best. If Gershom Scholem is the best place then I support leaving a redirect there. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, I'm seeing Merge, redirect and delete as possibiities here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Salminen[edit]

John Salminen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find independent in-depth coverage or reviews in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Edwardx (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2022 (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 Fushigi Yûgi. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fushigi Yûgi characters[edit]

List of Fushigi Yûgi characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

More unsourced fictography and cruft. Is this an encyclopedia or an anime fansite? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10th grade male student suicide in Hanoi in April 2022[edit]

10th grade male student suicide in Hanoi in April 2022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

How tragic this event is, it fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. The Banner talk 21:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan L. Olsen[edit]

Alan L. Olsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable accountant. Fails WP:GNG. Amon Stutzman (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is basically a LinkedIn page. I don't see anything of note here. He has a local radio show with zero sigcov. Heave ho. --Kbabej (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2022 (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! 04:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Fowler[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Maria Fowler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED for appearing on a notable TV show Joseph2302 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Hassan Al Nusuf[edit]

Mohammed Hassan Al Nusuf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies Oliver Virk (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete almost entirely unsourced, and written by an employee of the organisation he chairs. An online search shows only routine coverage and nothing in depth. Mccapra (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali bin Yousif Fakhro[edit]

Ali bin Yousif Fakhro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies Oliver Virk (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf bin Ahmed Kanoo[edit]

Yusuf bin Ahmed Kanoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies Oliver Virk (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bahrain. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wrote the article. A key figure in the development of the nation of Bahrain and the country's mercantile sector, as well as influential in the formation of the C19th and C20th Gulf (and in the relationship between the British and the Bahrainis), Kanoo established the first bank in Bahrain and a trading dynasty that today represents one of the largest trading and shipping conglomerates in the country. He is a major historical figure. All of this is clearly evidenced in the article which is sourced appropriately. He would pass WP:GNG having been awarded the MBE and Kaiser-i-Hind Medal alone. I wouldn't expect the nominator to perform a thorough WP:BEFORE on an historical figure, but I would have perhaps expected a more critical reading of the article and appreciation of the sources presented, which are all sound. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with everything else you say, but would take issue with the sentence, "He would pass WP:GNG having been awarded the MBE alone." It has always been the case that article subjects need to be at least two levels higher, i.e. CBEs, for that alone to be cause for notability. My father was an MBE, but it would be ridiculous to claim that an encyclopedia should have an article about him. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Phil Bridger... I chucked in the Kaiser-i-Hind anyway. :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 18 July 2022 (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 23:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

McCloy Viennese Ball[edit]

McCloy Viennese Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable event per WP:NEVENT and lacks WP:GNG from non-primary source(s). >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is not notable. It's a dance at a private club of university alum. There's no coverage, and I got 0 hits on newspapers.com. --Kbabej (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. Nothing that doesn't come from primary sources. BilletsMauves (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gezel[edit]

Gezel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creating an AfD for further discussion after PROD was contested. I think the article does not quite meet WP:GNG -- the Scholar, Books, and JSTOR links do not demonstrate notable *independent* coverage beyond the original line of research. If others disagree and think GNG is met, WP:PAGEDECIDE applies: in that case, I think this article's topic is best mentioned as part of a larger article, such as in one of the tables at Hardware description language. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I looked a bit further into references on Gezel to determine notability. A few links
  • Hansen, Michael R.; Madsen, Jan; Brekling, Aske Wiid (2007), Jones, Cliff B.; Liu, Zhiming; Woodcock, Jim (eds.), "Semantics and Verification of a Language for Modelling Hardware Architectures", Formal Methods and Hybrid Real-Time Systems: Essays in Honor of Dines Bjørner and Chaochen Zhou on the Occasion of Their 70th Birthdays, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 300–319, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-75221-9_13, ISBN 978-3-540-75221-9, retrieved 2022-07-04
  • Schaumont, Patrick R. (2012-11-27). A Practical Introduction to Hardware/Software Codesign. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-1-4614-3737-6.
  • a GitHub repo for Gezel syntax highlighting (last updated 10 years ago)
  • A GitHub repo with homework in Gezel
Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 01:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Count Your Sheep[edit]

Count Your Sheep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Literally every source in the article is the comic itself. I was unable to find any sources in a WP:BEFORE, and the article has been tagged for sources and notability since 2012. Prod contested as "not uncontroversial". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Other than the Webcomics Examiner review, I wasn't able to find any substantial secondary sources. That review is not enough to demonstrate notability. HenryCrun15 (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The Webcomic Examiner review and WCCAs won are great, but those two are just not enough to write an article around. Maybe if I could've found one more source... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer to have more to write with, but it's doable. (Wouldn't it be great if I put my money where my mouth is right away? Sadly post-COVID fatigue is kicking my ass and I'm a dunce at the best of times. --Kizor 05:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Webcomic Examiner is considered a reliable source by the webcomics wikiproject's consensus, and the shipload of WCCA awards is perfectly adequate as an independent indication that the topic is of some distinction within its field, instead of being included indiscriminately - which is to say, to establish notability. --Kizor 04:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Several AFDs disagree with you on the WCCAs being a notable award. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've seen the three AfDs you've linked in other discussions to make that point. All of them were decided on the basis of not having reliable sourcing to write with, not on the basis of the WCCAs' notability. You say there's consensus that they aren't notable, but the only one of those three that discusses the WCCAs' status in any detail shows nothing of the sort, and looking at the current raft of webcomic AfDs I see more support for their notability than opposition. I've also seen you argue that the WCCAs can't have been big if they were only awarded for seven years, and I disagree: seven years during the Internet's formative period is an eternity. I stand by what I said. --Kizor 05:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides which, you're in said detailed discussion arguing that WCCAs ≠ notability if no other sources exist, which isn't the case here. --Kizor 05:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 18 July 2022 (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 11:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larisa Sadarangani[edit]

Larisa Sadarangani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No where near WP:NBAD, let alone WP:GNG. zoglophie 20:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with nominator that she does not meet the notability guidelines. Being part of the New Zealand national badminton squad is not sufficient, and a WP:BEFORE search finds no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Chocmilk03 (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramya Tulasi[edit]

Ramya Tulasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG zoglophie 20:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails GNG. I found only routine coverage, apart from a picture of an article headed "Smashers call-up takes Ramya by surprise", which might be one source contributing to notability, if I knew what it's origin was. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lalita Dahiya[edit]

Lalita Dahiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG zoglophie 20:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails GNG. I only found a few items of fairly routine coverage. Pleae ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 01:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ry Armstrong (actor)[edit]

Ry Armstrong (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NACTOR with two minor roles (both uncredited), a short, and one episode of a TV series. Currently the first and second references are interviews, and the third is a mention in one sentence. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 20:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there is "still more coverage available", now would be the time to mention it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cain Carrizosa[edit]

Cain Carrizosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMMA. Never previously appeared in Sherdog's top 10, and his highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 114th at featherweight. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 18:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fight results and listings in databases are insufficient to show WP notability. Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JP Buys[edit]

JP Buys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMMA. Never previously appeared in Sherdog's top 10, nor has he been ranked inside his division's top 10 by Fight Matrix, with his highest being 44th. Also couldn't find any significant coverage on the subject, so WP:GNG is failed. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 18:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails to meet either WP:GNG or the current WP:NMMA. Coverage is routine sports reporting and fight announcements, nothing sufficient to show notability. Setting a record for being knocked down the most is not a sign of WP notability and his record shows he wasn't really ready to fight at the highest level. Papaursa (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2022 (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 Flight Safety Foundation. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Safety Network[edit]

Aviation Safety Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The article is sourced only using content from the website itself, and I couldn't find anything from secondary sources, apart from a couple of very short articles talking about some minor changes made to the website. BilletsMauves (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Websites. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Flight Safety Foundation. The ASN website is run by the FSF and is a major source of information on air accidents, but is hardly worthy of a dedicated article. However 'Aviation Safety Network' is a likely search term for people googling for more info, so Wikipedia ought to cater for it with a redirect. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Valone[edit]

John Valone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This local trade union president doesn't appear to be the subject of any significant coverage. He was mentioned in a court case but that's about it. Falls way short of the notability requirements. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 18 July 2022 (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. Regrettably, there's very little substantive argument on either side of this debate. Nobody besides Aoidh has examined in detail the sources provided. Longevity, and the existence of primary sources, do not contribute toward notability; but conversely, promotional content isn't in and of itself a reason for deletion unless a page is promotional in its entirety (and therefore eligible for WP:CSD#G11), and primary sources are permitted to be used once notability has been demonstrated via secondary sources. On the balance the "delete" arguments are marginally stronger, but the margin isn't large enough for consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koozali SME Server[edit]

Koozali SME Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Press releases and a couple of minor reviews are not enough to establish notability. Per WP:NSOFT: "the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable" and the reviews that do exist are not significant, nor do they do anything but repeat the release notes. The reviews are minor, go into absolutely no detail or perform an actual review, merely parrot a press-release from the distro itself, Furthermore, an entry on DistroWatch is not an indicator of notability, as DistroWatch is user-submitted content and for those that don't want to be put on the submission waitlist, anyone with $220 can buy an instant listing on DistroWatch, there is no other criteria. Aoidh (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just edited the article to have more encyclopedic and referenced content. Regards. Gieres2 (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC) — Gieres2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I've been monitoring the article, and there's been a lot of forum posts and routine acquisition of parent entities and such, but nothing that provides significant coverage for the article's subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, outside of the aforementioned routine reviews. - Aoidh (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
First thank you for you time reviewing wiki article and sharing your wisdom.
I understand your concern about some forum post being part of the sources. However, I sincerely think there are sufficient external "reliable sources that are independent of the subject", even if it is not only this kind of source in order to be able to cover sufficiently the subject. For the exercise, I took the time to categorize all the citation currently in the article:
Here are trusted and independant sources:
- https://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/BusinessEntityDetail.do?quitButtonDestination=BusinessEntityResults&nameTyp=ENT&masterFileId=20051244165&entityId2=20051244165&fileId=20051244165&srchTyp=ENTITY Colorado State registration
- https://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.do_name_srch?p_name=koozali&p_regist_nbr=&p_srch=PHASE1&p_entity_status=ACTINA Oregon state registration
- https://alter.com/trademarks/sme-server-77129033 trademark registration of logo 2008-2014
- https://lwn.net/Articles/61202/ article contributed by Ladislav Bodnar
- https://www.linux.com/news/lycoris-acquires-mitel-sme-server-spin/ Linux.com on Lycoris 2004
- https://www.osnews.com/story/10854/mandriva-acquires-lycoris/ osnews on Lycoris and Mandriva 2005
Here are some independants sources:
- https://archive.org/details/sim_americas-network_2001-09-01_105_13/page/n91/mode/2up?q=%22e-smith%22+mitel America's Network 2001 (not a review)
- https://archive.org/details/manualzilla-id-7007093/page/n1/mode/2up?q=%22e-smith%22+server Mitel Documentation
- https://archive.org/details/postnukecontentm0000hatc/page/16/mode/2up?q=%22sme+server%22 Postnuke project documentation citing SME Server as good server to run Postnuke on 2005
- https://archive.org/details/manualzilla-id-7384540/page/n17/mode/2up?q=%22sme+server%22 Medical Practice Network Security Firewall tutorial 2005
Here are the review you mentions, still independant sources.
- https://archive.org/details/DigitAugust2001/page/143/mode/2up?q=%22e-smith%22+server Digit Magazine 2001
- https://www.theregister.com/Print/2010/11/17/review_sme_server/ The Register 2010 (appears 2 times need to fix it)
- https://archive.org/details/LinuxVoice/Linux-Voice-Issue-018/page/n59/mode/2up?q=%22Sme+server%22 Linux Voice - Short review of Netheserver mentionning the Fork 2014
- https://archive.org/details/apc-2005_04/page/n107/mode/2up?q=%22Sme+server%22 Australian Personal Computer 2005
here are some less independant from the subject but giving important detail in term of history or technical details
- https://static.lwn.net/1999/0506/a/e-smith.html e-smith founder announcing the public release
- https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg12336.html email from Dan York, Director of Product Management, Mobility Solutions Mitel Networks Corporation
- https://www.clearos.com/clearfoundation/social/community-dashboard/entry/shad-lords-joins-the-clearfoundation-team Announcement ClearOS blog annoucement from Michael Proper from ClearOS 2010
- http://smerp.free.fr/ SME fork
- http://web.archive.org/web/20060706204953/http://free-eos.adullact.net/Manuels/ManuelServeur1.3/whatsnew.html SME fork
here are the "lot of forum post" you mention
- https://forums.koozali.org/index.php?topic=37294.0 forum post on Ruffdogs and Hollonyx 2007
- https://forums.koozali.org/index.php/topic,27362.msg115669.html#msg11566 forum post on donation 2005
- https://forums.koozali.org/index.php?topic=39713.0 forum post on community elections 2008
- https://forums.koozali.org/index.php/topic,46850.msg230522.html#msg230522 forum post on donatiosn 2010
- https://forums.koozali.org/index.php/topic,49983.0.html server migration 2013
- https://forums.koozali.org/index.php/topic,51237.0.html server migration 2014
- https://forums.koozali.org/index.php/topic,49846.0.html Koozali Foundation announcement 2013
here are some WP:ABOUTSELF non independant sources:
- http://distro.ibiblio.org/smeserver/contribs/rmcnew/SME_Community_Constitution/rtf/ Ruffdogs and SME Server community policies 2005
- https://wiki.koozali.org/SME_Server:Constitution_2008
- https://www.pr.com/press-release/43464 press release from the Koozali Board
- https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Koozali+Foundation%2C+Home+of+the+SME+Server%2C+to+Share+a+Portion+of...-a0335881674 (duplicate of previous will merge them)
To note that where the forum posts are used, I think they enter in the use case for WP:ABOUTSELF, and hence are ok to use in the context about an article about itself.
Also from comparing the other side distro in the current Fedora Linux derivatives category, like Berry_Linux, ClearOS I see a lot of similarity in term of external sources used. tuxmachines.org is also based on user input as distrowatch.com which is part of sources WP:UBO. They are also using self blog post in more popular distro article like AlmaLinux for WP:ABOUTSELF .
While I understand your initial concerned about distrowatch offering quick advertising for money, this is an option they offer for the NEW distro wanting early marketing, and are pending review for inclusion in the listing (https://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=submit). Read there, they have a review process to include new Distro for listing and SME Server is there since 2002-01-31 (20 years). They are still a ressource in the Linux world for informations like release dates. 
I would be please to improve more the article but concerns on specific parts would really be more helpfull than a simple "nothing that provides significant coverage for the article's subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, outside of the aforementioned routine reviews" when what I see 14 /33 are independant sources (only 4 are reviews) in the list and other are WP:ABOUTSELF.
Regards. Gieres2 (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly a lot of links. However there's not a single thing in that list that shows notability for the subject in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Things like trademark filings and user manuals are not independent sources. Mentions about routine business acquisitions and trivial mentions in magazines are trivial coverage. Despite how you described them, this, this, and this are not reviews of the subject and are absolutely trivial coverage in that they mention the subject only in passing. Your WP:ABOUTSELF links are fine for describing the subject, but are absolutely useless for showing notability about the subject, which is the issue at hand here. This is a review, but per WP:NSOFT, merely having a review does not suggest notability. As for DistroWatch, it is user-generated content and not a reliable source in any way. At the link you provided it explicitly says "There are a few situations where we might not list a new distribution, but those are rare." Essentially a distro has to exist to be listed, that's it. There's a waiting list to make sure it's not one of the few exceptions like an embedded distro, but other than that if you exist you're in as far as DistroWatch, so having an entry there means absolutely nothing as far as showing notability, as it's not notable that something is listed there. The fact that nothing provides notability is the issue. - Aoidh (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've browsed over the links provided and while some are indeed dubious as reliable sources, the review from The Register certainly fit the significance and reliable source criteria. It is a proper review, provided criticism and insights and certainly does not repeat any press releases. I also stumbled upon this 2019 comparison of small business servers in which SME is described. If Berry Linux did indeed pass the notability test, I think there are more sources listed here than is enough for SME to deserve a spot on Wikipedia. This distro has existed for 20 years, is still running on thousands of servers and is being actively developed and supported. Tinss (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @Tinss. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry to relist this again, but I'd like to see comments after recent improvements to the article. Also, if you could also boil your comments down to a bolded "Keep" or "Delete" it would reduce the amount of deciphering your intent which is required in some of the longer remarks. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question
@Gieres2 Could you please let us know about the type of the organization. Here it says [9] It is a private company but in subject site it claims as NPO [10]. It is contradicting. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tinss (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your comment above, a review or two is not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT, and having existed for 20 years is not a criteria for notability, nor is the number of machines using it. The comparison to Berry Linux is WP:OSE. The mere number of sources in an article is also not an indication of notability. - Aoidh (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Aoidh's arguments. In addition, I'm siding delete because of the promotional nature of the article. SWinxy (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2022 (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! 04:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amjad Mahmood Chishti[edit]

Amjad Mahmood Chishti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks sourcing, mostly sourced to articles contributed to Urdu media by the subject, what little isn't is at best passing mention. A teacher and writer who otherwise fails WP:GNG. Promotional, woefully sourced, few inline citations to corroborate anything other than the existence of his books. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can certify the authenticity of this article as I am doing a thesis on the person (Amjad Mahmood Chishti). I'd like to request to not delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:ADC5:1BE:7700:1FF:BA48:84EB:EC9D (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Subject is verifiable but IMHO doesn't meet any standard for notability. I'm seeing nothing in the sources which meets direct detailing in sufficient significant coverage in RS independent of the subject. The tone of this article displays many signs of connected editing: Amjad Mahmood Chishti#Other Interests, which includes a gallery of the subject's hobby work (which page creator uploaded). To my eyes this seems most likely a student trying to show appreciation for a teacher. BusterD (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2022 (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) NemesisAT (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modo (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Modo (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Software doesn't seem to meet WP:NPRODUCT - the sole independent sources that are focussed on the product are 1) an announcement on Macworld about the release of an updated version and 2) a paragraph in an Aristek Systems comparison of 9 software programs. This doesn't seem sufficient to pass as significant in-depth coverage? MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notability isn't based on the sources present in an article, but the sources available in the world. A quick WP:BEFORE search shows multiple review articles ([11], [12], [13], and [14]) and books ([15], [16] ,[17], and [18]). These are sufficient sources with which to write an article describing modo and to satisfy WP:GNG. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 08:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    True. Agree with Keep, I think there are sufficient sources. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I and others in the Article Rescue Squadron participated in the first AFD of this article ten years ago, and found significant coverage in reliable sources. I find many of the links no longer work, but notability is not temporary, and sources don't have to be accessible online to count. The total coverage found was enough to convince everyone back then. The Animation Magazine review still works. [19] Mark viking found a review in PC World, so that's another reliable source. Dream Focus 08:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Given there were three 'keep' !votes, no delete opinions beyond the nom, and general agreement that the nom failed BEFORE, I don't see the point in relisting. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: adequate sources appear to exist; nom failed to do BEFORE check. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The nominator has been checkuser-blocked, and the other participants do not find consensus. Sandstein 09:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kalnabu[edit]

Battle of Kalnabu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by a sock and possibly G5 eligible, but other editors have been going over copyright and AfC here, so nominating here. This possible battle is covered by a single source, a 1967 journal article by Abir, in which it is covered along with other events in one long paragraph. The other substantial source in the article (Robinson, Arthur E.) is used for background information but has nothing on the battle itself.

Searching for Kalnabu 1837 yields close to nothing. It appears in a timeline in Polish, and also appears briefly in a book by Abir from 1968 which may be the same as the 1967 journal article, and is brief anyway.

To summarize, beyond the G5 issue, there aren't sources that cover this possible battle in depth. Pikavoom Talk 08:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom, insufficient sources exist to demonstrate notability. Searches draw a blank. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Ethiopia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't see any reason to delete it, also has enough references and supporting citations now.Historicalfacts000 (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It actually only has one non-primary citation (Abir, 1967) with information on the supposed battle, and that's in a single paragraph with other topics as well. The other substantive citation (Robinson, 1926) has nothing on the battle and is used for background information in the article. Pikavoom Talk 10:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See page 452-453 of Abir Mordechai journal, there are references there to Isenberg, Arnaud-Michel d'Abbadie, Campbell and Robinson, contemporary travellers to Abyssinia. Other (non-contemporary) 19th century traveller Herbert Weld Blundell. So there is potentially more sources out there. I vote keep, i find this deletion nomination too premature, there seems to be that no serious effort have been undertaken to expand the article's sourcing (via resourche exchange, wikilibrary for examples). It's also a relatively new article, other editors can still improve this article. Possibly from interested Wikiprojects. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More sources are likely to exist, as the paragraph in Abir suggests this was a brutal battle with many casualties:
"Dejazmatc Kinfu, governor of Dembya, quickly gathered an army and moved down to attack the Egyptians who, by this time, had returned to the area of Galabat. The Egyptian force retreated in the direction of the military post at Doka, but at a place called Kalnabu, near Reshid, in an open area most unsuitable for defence against the Ethiopian cavalry, they were forced to give battle. Although part of the irregular Egyptian cavalry managed to escape, most of the regular infantry, the officers of the regular and irregular forces, and Sheikh Miri of Galabat were killed or taken prisoner. The Ethiopian force returned to Metemma and, after punishing the population, marched back to Dembya." 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ficaia: Abir is basically the only source that covers this using Kalnabu, it is not certain this battle happened as the details of it are very similar to Battle of Wadkaltabu, which took place in Wadi/wad/walad Kaltabu which is spelled very similar to Kalnabu. Abir using Kalnabu, does not use Kaltabu in his article. Most sources are using Kaltabu, not Kalnabu, and the details described between these two events are nearly identical. Compare a search for Kalnabu 1837 with Kaltabu 1837. Also, a google search does not find a single source using Kaltabu and Kalnabu together in an article kalnabu Kaltabu 1837. The search for "kalnabu wadkaltabu 1837" only finds Wikipedia and its clones. Pikavoom Talk 07:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As a further point for why these are probably the same, some of the sources for Kaltabu also use May 1837, though most use April 1837. This be because, as seen here, the reports about the battle are in documents and letters dated to May. There may also be a Julian calendar issue, as the Ottoman empire used the Julian Rumi calendar until 1917. I haven't found a single source that covers two separate battles, one in Kalnabu in May and one in Kaltabu in April. Pikavoom Talk 07:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Beyond the obvious phonetic similarity, of Kalnabu and Kaltabu, the only real source using Kalnabu, Abir, describes it in a similar manner: from [20]: "at a place called Kalnabu, near Reshid, in an open area". Compare this to:
    1. Hill 1956: "According to Antoine d Abbadie, in the course of a letter to E. F. Jomard announcing the death of Kenfu, the batde was fought at Metemma (i.e. Gallabat) on the present Sudanese Ethiopian frontier (Bull. Soc. Géogr. de Paris , XIV, 1840, p. 58). The author of Tďrikh muluk ai-Sudan places the battle at Wad Kal tabu near Rashid".
    2. Endalew 2006: " the second , big battle that took place in April 1837 at Wad Kaltabu near Rashid, deep inside Sudanese territory"
    3. MacMichael 2010 "This year too occurred the battle of Walad Kaltabu, which is a place near Rashid".
So Abir uses Kalnabu near Reshid, while other sources use Kaltabu near Rashid. It's a spelling variation in Abir, not a different place and event as the article makes out. The map location of Rashid is probably this, which is 75 kilometres up the road from Gallabat at the border. The same sockmaster created Battle of Wadkaltabu and later Battle of Kalnabu (this article), presenting them as separate events, but there are no sources presenting them as separate events. Pikavoom Talk 08:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the n/t mixup may be explained by a copyist’s error or a misreading of (ن) for (ت). Mccapra (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could be that. In addition, Abir is citing sources in French who might be citing sources in Ethiopian? Also Abir in his later writing Abir 1968, which is very similar maybe full copy of the 1967 article, still uses Kalnabu in the text but changes Reshid to Rashid in page 102. However, in the index of the book on page 203 there is no Kalnabu, but instead page 102 is indexed under Kaltabu, battle of. Google books has Abir 1968 only in snippets, but it does show Abir is not consistent with n/t and a/e. This 2020 PhD thesis that cites Abir 1967 as a single source uses "Wad Kaltabu" despite Abir 1967 using Kalnabu. Pikavoom Talk 09:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere are many references to other sources in the journal, i'm going to see if i can get my hands on them (archives, library or resource exchange), there might be also be spelling variations in other languages, or the location Kalnabu/Reshid is only determined by Abir, while other sources may in general cite this conflict as a Ethiopian-Egyptian/Ottoman conflict, or border conflict. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources that refer to Kalnabu,Reshid and Kaltabu,Rashid (with existing battle Battle of Wadkaltabu) as separate. Even Abir uses Kaltabu,Rashid in 1968 as demonstrated above. On what basis are you claiming this is a separate from event from Kaltabu? Amir doesn't support that, Amir describes one battle, not two. Pikavoom Talk 10:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pikavoom: I'm not claiming this is a separate or part of series of events. I'm saying there are sources [[21]] there that are worth considering doing source verification. This subject that has multiple references to contemporary persons of that era who wrote journals, those sources may not use Kalnabu or whatever derivative of that term, but simply report a war/conflict between Ethiopians and the Ottomans/Egyptians. We won't know without source verification, and hence why i find your nomation for deletion (of a relatively new article) way too premature. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the socking that led to this article, which makes the entire text suspect, I performed quite a bit of source verification. The link to Abir you point out, I verified that other sources that cite Abir use Kaltabu, even though they cite Abir that uses Kalnabu. I also verified that Abir himself referred to Kaltabu (in the index of his 1968 book) and to Rashid (in text of 1968) when referring to the same battle. The current article falsely states this is a separate battle from Battle of Wadkaltabu. No source supports that. The single Abir source that uses, part of the time, the Kalnabu spelling only has one battle like this, not two. Pikavoom Talk 12:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pikavoom: Lets get into specific then, the jstor journal has references to Robinson Nimr in Histoire Sommaire d'Egypt, Arnauld D'Abbadie in Douze ans en Ethiopie. J. Tager in Cahiers d'Histoire Egyptienne among others, so people with contemporary journals at that time. Did you verify those sources? While i understand you have some reservations about a sock edits, deletion of a article based on that alone is not sufficient when there are so many references to sources available. You can't find everything based on a quick google search, some of these old 19th century sources are harder to find, and require search in library or resource exchange. In the event that you are correct, and only Abir is mentioning the location, maybe a page move is more appriopriate, especially if other sources out there (after source verification) proves that it's reported as a Ethiopian-Egyptian/Ottoman (border) conflict, and not as battle of Kalnabu? I don't think this deletion nomation is appriopriate at this time. I haven't seen any attempts based on wiki edits, that someone has tried to get those sources. I'm awaiting the outcome of this nomation first before filing a request for sources at WP:RX, because of the duration it takes before a source is shared (if found). Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I did not verify 19th century sources in French, I did verify multiple 20th and 21st century sources other than Abir, and citations of Abir. Some of those sources, for instance Hill 1956: AN UNPUBLISHED CHRONICLE OF THE SUDAN 1822-41, quote 19th century source material extensively. and I am 100% certain that Battle of Wadkaltabu, which is usually rendered "Wad Kaltabu" or "Walad Kaltabu" is exactly the same as the contents of this article (which uses the phonetically similar Kalnabu). If you need another source, this Ethopian history module that cites Abir has "He started his career by assisting his half−brother, Dejjazmach Kinfu in defeating the Egyptians at Wad Kaltabu (in present day eastern Sudan) in 1837" - again - Wad Kaltabu. Presenting a fake battle, as if two battles with the exact same details a month apart, took place in approximately the same place, is not OK and can not remain on Wikipedia. Pikavoom Talk 14:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It isn't "fake". The nominator has shown that it is a spelling variant or error. The solution is to merge, since the nom'd article is based on RS (Abir). Add a note to the Kaltabu article on Abir's anomalous spelling so it doesn't happen again. I doubt there is any dishonesty here, only editors confused by the sources. (The merged article should perhaps be retitled and repurposed as an article on the Egyptian–Ethiopian border conflict of 1837–1838, but that can be a separate discussion.) Srnec (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Srnec:, there is nothing much to merge that isn't fake, the fake portion being presenting this as two separate events in the lead which isn't supported by Abir. Regarding dishonesty, look at the revision deletions in the log. Regarding editors plural being confused, Battle of Wadkaltabu was created in January by ZemenfesKidus, while Battle of Kalnabu was created in May by BeteAmora who is in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ZemenfesKidus, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZemenfesKidus. ZemenfesKidus was blocked for problematic edits before the socking. There isn't any substantial editing, that isn't redacting copyrighted material, to either of the two articles by someone other than ZemenfesKidus&socks, the IP editors are also CU blocked. An editor, singular, editing as a sock after being blocked may have been confused or may have had a purpose to present two Ethiopian victories instead of one. Pikavoom Talk 16:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am familiar with the high level of chicanery in Horn-related topics. Still, you didn't bring up the existence of the Kaltabu article until earlier today (less than 24 hours ago). You said in the nomination that "there aren't sources that cover this possible battle in depth". I think that is false. I think you have shown it to be false. No, there weren't two battles, but that doesn't mean we delete one title. Abir says Kalnabu and, right or wrong, we should keep a redirect from that term. (I am not interested, as some editors sometimes are, in whether or not the history of this article, and thus the contributions of a sockpuppet, gets scrubbed from Wikipedia.) Srnec (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I originally looked into nominating here based on original research in the article (the multiple battles), sparse sources, and the sock history here, this being a borderline G5, only maybe precluded from G5 by the copyright violations redactions which are substantial edits! My original nomination was based on searching for "Kalnabu"+1837, a term that is only used by Abir, and searching for it one finds very few sources. After discussion here, I much later figured out that Battle of Wadkaltabu which should be Battle of Wad Kaltabu is the same as Kalnabu and that Abir made a spelling error in 1967, partially corrected in 1968. The article, as nominated, had a single source covering it - Abir - the other source not covering any battle, just background. Searching the term used in the article, Kalnabu, led to Abir and a brief mention in a Polish book. The misnaming of "Wad Kaltabu" as "Wadkaltabu" obscured the naming issue on Wikipedia. I made a substantial effort in a WP:BEFORE for a normal AfD, not a G5, before nominating. I did not take in consideration when nominating that the article is based on a spelling error in one source in the title. @Srnec: maybe you should try to search for Kalnabu+1837, and you'll see just how sparse the results are. The location itself, also spelled correctly, doesn't appear on maps. Even the small settlement of Rashid is hard to find. This is a well known location with a spelling error that is obvious, but a placename whose almost sole use is the 1837 event that is misspelled in a reliable source. Pikavoom Talk 07:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. Srnec (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final say on this. Let's take Abir completley out of this equation. I mentioned the ‘‘French’’ sources because the details of the battle are referenced to them in page 452 of the journal. Let's see what the contemporary sources that are cited in the journal actually say, do they mention Kalnabu/Reshid/Walkalbtu or a Ethiopian/Egyptian border conflict? A few examples Robinson Nimr's Histoire sommaire d'Egypte (1838) is referenced to support the month of May 1837. Arnauld D'Abbadie's in Douze ans en Haute Ethiopie (1868) is referenced to support Kalnabu, near Reshid and some dialogue between Kenfu and Kurshid Pasha (not involved in the April Battle of Wadkaltabu) where Kenfu threatend with a sixty thousand army. While i have no reason to doubt your research into this at all, disregarding the sources that are actually referenced to for the actual battle details/report/figures of the conflict is not being thorough enough for me to support a deletion nomation, nor does it convince me conclusively that the battle of Wadkaltabu and battle of Kalnabu are the same, not when different persons (Kurshid Pasha) are involved. I suppport source verifcation of the sources that are actually referenced to for the dates and the name Kalnabu. In addition there are also still hard to acquire English sources that have material on this for example [22]. Still keep, and then source verification of the referenced sources, and take steps from there is my suggestion. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC) duplicate vote by editor who already voted, struck. Pikavoom Talk 10:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawit S Gondaria:, did you verify these two sources yourself? Or are you trusting a banned sockpuppet's use of these unavailable 19th century sources in French? Pikavoom Talk 07:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And despite this WP:PROXYING for a banned editor whose citations you trust, I went the extra mile here. I managed to find Histoire sommaire de l'Égypte sous le gouvernement de Mohammed-Aly . My French is not great, but I did read pages 97 and 98. It does not say 1837, though it is implicit it is 1837 because it comes after an Arabian (Hejaz) campaign in 1837. I do not see anywhere where Mengin says May. I don't see Kalnbu or Reshid, Mengin refers to a "province de Kallabat" where this occured and how Campfou (or Kounfou, comment in source) governor of Gondar responded. Pikavoom Talk 07:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've also verified that Nimr, short citation form copied in article from Abir ("Robinson, "Nimr', I15"), the actual citation should be to NIMR, THE LAST KING OF SHENDI, E. A. Robinson has nothing on any specific battle in 1837. Nimr has a reoccupation of Gallabat in 1837 and a withdrawl after "The Powers protested at the invasion of Abyssinia and Khurshid Pasha returned to Wad Medani after ravaging the frontier. The force taken to the Sudan from Egypt by Abu Udan Pasha was replaced by an equal number of black troops".
As for Douze ans de séjour dans la Haute-Éthiopie d'Arnauld d'Abbadie, it is available online here. Abir cites page 312. Arnauld refers to the Ethiopian commander as Dedjadj Conefo (may be same as Dejazmatch Kenfu in article? and Dejazmatc Kinfu in Abir ?) as embarking on a campaign at the bottom of page 311. I don't see a date in Arnauld's diary, though he does speak of courage, valour, egalitarian spirit ("grand esprit d'egalite") vs. hierarchy and insolence, European discipline ("la discipline europeene"), and of battle after a very long multi page digression. I do not see how Arnauld supports "Kalnabu, near Reshid". Please provide a quote and exact page number and line for such support. Arnauld spells many names differently from other sources (e.g Dedjadj Conefo), it might be the French or as it is and old and archaic language in a diary. Pikavoom Talk 08:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As yet another example of spelling and dating issues here, this is a 1837 letter by Arthur Holroyd. in page 21, "When I returned to Kartoom* in May, I first learned the intelligence of the war against Abyssinia..." He tells of a "massacre of the Pacha's troops occurred during an eclipse of the moon on the 20th of April.", "having passed Kallabat, arrived at the Abyssinian frontier", and finally how "had driven them back across the frontier to Rasheb, and here the massacre took place." (*Kartoom=Khartoum or Khartum, unless we want a new city here?) Where does this silliness end? Do we make a third article, the Battle of Rasheb next describing the same demise of Ottoman expedition near Rashid (or Reshid in Abir 1967)? Pikavoom Talk 09:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pikavoom: This is the appropriate avenue, stay on this avenue, so stop harrasing my talkpage when we have a discussion about the subject here. Your found sources kudo's to you! But stop your baseless accusation of WP:PROXYING, i couldn't find those sources, but my intent was to search for them after your premature nomination had run it's course as i told earlier in the discussion. The sources you provided did confirm Kurshid Pasha, and guess what that's only two out of four sources in note 39, which leaves Ta’rikh Muluk 31 and The Royal Chronicles of Abyssinia by Herbert Weld Blundell (Cambridge 1922) left to verify. Remember the sock did not write the Jstor journal, Abir Mordechai did, Mordechai made references to those sources. Abir Mordechai is frequently cited in Horn of Africa related history. As for names, there's no agreed standard of romanizing Ethiopian languages(at least no standard for Amharic), hence spelling when romanized can differ significantly in sources, especially old ones. Campfou, Kounfo, Conefu and Kinfu, Kenfu are the same individual. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawit S Gondaria: you are defending the hoax creation of a sock and making assertions without sources, and when you bring up sources they don't say what you say they say or say they potentially say. Please provide an actual citation that supports that this supposed battle of Kalnabu is a different battle from Battle of Wadkaltabu. A reliable source stating that two battles took place. I spent quite a bit of time verifying that the sources you brought up above, do not say what you said they possibly said. I have checked the sources you pointed out. I also brought up several sources that cite Abir,1967 that use Kaltabu. As an example, this PhD thesis cites Abir,1967 (Kalnabu) and Rubenson, 1966 (Kaltabu) to write "Däjjazmač Kenfu, Maru‟s nephew, fought against the Egyptians who raided and enslaved the border people as far as Wähni and scored a victory over them at Wad Kaltabu in 1837 in the Sudan". So that's an example that scholars regard Abir's Kalnabu as the same as Kaltabu by other scholars. Pikavoom Talk 10:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pikavoom: A very direct question, did you verify all the sources in Note 39, yes or no? As for two events being one. Where is for example Kurshid Pasha mentioned in relation to the Battle of Wadkaltabu, fair question right, if you are claiming Battle of Kalnabu is the same as Wad Kaltabu? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I verified that every source you mentioned above, doesn't say what you say it potentially says. You have this backwards, if you want to retain this article, you are supposed to provide appropriate citations for your vote. So far you've been vaguely waving at citations, in French from the 19th century no less, that might support what you think might be possible. They do not. Are for Kurshid Pasha, the account in Hill, 1956 that is used extensively in Battle of Wadkaltabu has "Kenfu in secrecy raised an army to take revenge. Correct intelligence did not reach the governor of the Sudan, who thought that Kenfu's force was small. Khurshid Pasha sent 600 men with the commandant- of the 5th battalion, 400 Magharba:! cavalry and 200 Sha'iqiya4 horsemen. Counting the troops already in al-'Atish the total force amounted to 1,500 men, all under the command of Ahmad Kashif." In note6 on page 8: "* In reporting the defeat to Cairo, Khurshid wrote....". In note1 on page9: "Khurshid does not shield Ahmad Kashif in his report : "Ahmad Kashif .... with 400 regulars and 200 cavalry set out..." Kurshid was the commander of Kashif. Pikavoom Talk 11:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We are pretty far from consensus here but I see more support for Keeping or Merging the article to another despite the nominator's insistence that there is nothing in the article that is worth merging. Perhaps another week will reconclie this stalemate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think Pikavoom has shown that no such battle existed and the content of this article is either a misunderstanding or a hoax. The only thing to merge from this article would be a brief reference to the alternative spelling of the name. Mccapra (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: If we assume @Pikavoom: is correct and has indeed verified as claimed, it would still be a merge for me because the article (least the Jstor journal in the article) gives additional information that can be merged with Battle of Wadkaltabu (barring Abir's presumed error with the date, that is if Pikavoom is correct that it's one single event not two). if they are indeed the same event, it's still not only a variation of mispelling of Wad Kaltabu. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator is blocked for abuse of account. I was going to assume good faith and trust @Pikavoom: claims of having verified the sources since Pikavoom did provide some verifiable links to quite few of them. Wherever this afd nomination goes now, i'm going to try to verify the sources (Ta'rik Mulukh) and other sources for which Pikavoom didn't provide links just in case. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2022 (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 Ward 1 Etobicoke North. Those arguing to delete are entirely correct in pointing out that awards and achievements that have no secondary, intellectually independent coverage do not contribute toward notability. Setting those arguments aside, whether or not WP:BLP1E is applicable rests on whether the individual in question ends up receiving lasting coverage in secondary sources; and the evidence provided for this is weak. The argument to redirect has not been rebutted, but it should go without saying that recreation without substantive new material would be disruptive. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemarie Bryan[edit]

Rosemarie Bryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E of a politician, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim is that she was appointed to Toronto City Council a few weeks ago and then immediately resigned her seat within a few hours after somebody caught some old social media stuff that had been missed in the vetting process -- and while Toronto City Councillors tend to be presumed to pass WP:NPOL #2 in principle, it's not an absolute guarantee: their notability depends on doing noteworthy things in office and getting GNG-worthy coverage of their work in office, and a person whose entire term on council began and ended on the same day cannot be deemed permanently notable forever just because she technically served on council for a few hours.
Further, this doesn't make much of a case that she had preexisting notability for other reasons prior to her fifteen minutes of fame, or that she would pass WP:GNG: this is referenced almost entirely to a mix of primary sources that are not support for notability at all (the city council's own website, the self-published websites of non-media organizations directly affiliated with the statements, etc.) and community hyperlocals covering her in local-interest contexts that aren't encyclopedically notable -- of the just four footnotes that come from real GNG-worthy media, one is just verifying her resignation; one won't let me read it to see how much it actually says about her, but is dated 14 years ago and is being used only to support her birthdate and the death of her mother rather than anything noteworthy; and two just glancingly mention her existence in the process of being about her predecessor, and thus don't help to establish her notability as she isn't their subject.
Serving on city council for a grand total of five hours is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more GNG-worthy sourcing than this, and there's no real claim to be made that any of this would pass the ten year test for enduring importance. The only content we need about this can be covered off by the two sentences about it that were already present in Ward 1 Etobicoke North two full weeks before this standalone BLP got created -- but none of it is "inherently" notable enough to get her a standalone BLP at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the article was rewritten to indicate she was the shortest serving city counsellor, it would be more of a "hook". Plenty of GNG sources if you search for websites from Canada, almost too many to list here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources that exist are the one-day blip of "councillor appointed and then resigns the same day", with absolutely no non-trivial coverage outside that brief period. Don't be fooled by the raw number of hits that her name seems to generate on Google News: just four of them are actually about her at all, and are all from that same-day blip, while all of the others are either glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage about Michael Ford or accidental hits on unrelated news stories that have absolutely nothing to do with either her or Michael Ford, but briefly had her name present in an "other news" sidebar on the one day that she was newsworthy (e.g. this, which doesn't mention her name at all even though her name does appear in the Google News summary of it, because her name happened to be in a sidebar headline for a brief period on June 24 — and her coverage is so limited that this link came from the first page of Google News results). Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created the article and I don't feel good that it was nominated for deletion without me being notified. Fortunately, I follow it, so caught this. I contend that she is notable and it's her very short term in office that makes her notable. If being a city councillor in a medium sized nation's biggest city isn't enough, that's OK, because she was the subject of an article in Jet Magazine in 2008 about her weight loss goals and her mother's death. She's the founder of an organisation. She won an award that was issued by the Premier of the province. There's tons of media about her very short time in office. If that was the only thing, I might not have created this due to WP:BLP1E reasons, but in the context of the other stuff, I think she meets WP:GNG. I don't think that the sources being local is a negative thing, I don't think WP:GNG says anything about that. Comparing her to her peers, who the nominator says tend to be notable, ironically I think her oddly short time (she resigned in newsworthy circumstances) makes her more notable. CT55555 (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her weight loss goals don't help to make her notable at all. Awards don't help to establish notability if you have to depend on the awarding organization's own self-published website about itself to source the claim — an award has to be sourceable to GNG-worthy media coverage, establishing that the award itself is a notable one, before it can make its winners notable for winning it. Founding an organization is not a notability freebie if you have to rely on primary sources to support the claim because GNG-worthy media coverage about her founding of an organization is lacking. There isn't "tons" of media about her time in office; there's a one-day blip of local-interest coverage in Toronto's local media, and absolutely nothing before or since. And on and so forth: none of this is "inherently" notable in the absence of much, much better sourcing than what's been shown here. Local media isn't always verboten in Wikipedia articles, but if a person has purely local media coverage in purely local-interest contexts that isn't necessarily always enough to get them over WP:GNG in lieu of having to actually pass an SNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most media occurred on 25th June 2022. But some later too :
  1. you can read mentions about it days later here: https://www.thestar.com/local-toronto-scarborough/news/2022/06/29/north-etobicoke-residents-need-toronto-council-advocate-community-says.html?itm_source=parsely-api
  2. Canadaland discussed the incident on a podcast here: https://www.canadaland.com/podcast/793-you-dont-both-sides-human-rights/
  3. And here: https://thecaribbeancamera.com/tag/torontos-councillor-resigns-hours-after-appointment/
WP:NOTBLP1E informs us well and reminds us that it's OK to have articles about people who are mostly known for one thing, if the other things are small and brief and not notable individually.
Canadaland podcast is not local reporting, it's national. CT55555 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Mentions" of her in coverage about something else don't help to make her notable at all, and podcasts are not reliable or GNG-building sources. It doesn't matter whether Canadaland is "local" or "national" — it's a podcast, which means it isn't notability-supporting sourcing regardless of where anybody thinks it falls on a local-vs-national scale. And The Caribbean Camera is a weekly publication, which means the fact that its article was dated June 30 isn't evidence that an event that happened less than a week before that was getting any kind of sustained coverage — that just means it published an article about the incident in the first possible issue for it to have published an article about the incident in, and you haven't shown evidence that it's continued to cover her or the incident since then. And it's a community hyperlocal in Toronto, which means it isn't national or international coverage either. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you put mentions in quotation marks, I didn't say mentions. Two of three provides significant coverage. She's the subject of one and discussed in the third. And I think the guideline doesn't match what you say. From WP:GNG Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. So I think indeed as long as it's significant, she does not need to be the main topic. It's a 52 minute podcast, it talks about various things. CT55555 (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first of those three links ("North Etobicoke residents need Toronto council advocate") is a trivial mention; it merely glancingly namechecks her existence in an article whose core subject is something else. A person doesn't have to be the sole subject of an article for it to count, but she does have to be more than just a name that happens to get mentioned in it.
And I never said that the problem with Canadaland hinged on whether she was the sole subject of the entire episode or just a part of it — the problem with Canadaland hinges on the fact that Canadaland is a podcast, and podcasts are not notability-making sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I sense we're not going to agree here, so maybe we should end it here. (I do agree one of three was trivial) But just one question, is the preclusion of podcasts your opinion, consensus, policy or guideline? Can you point to something on that? CT55555 (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've not seen anything conclusive regarding podcasts, but the topic does pop up on talk pages from time to time, e.g. Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Archive_65#Add_podcasts_to_user-generated_content. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If its case by case, then please note I'm quoting one of the most popular podcasts in the country and it was presented by a notable political journalist. CT55555 (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on process I think most editors would object to not being notified of a proposed deletion. And I object again that the justification to delete has been changed after I've already defended the first version of the justification. Normally editors strike things out once someone has replied to them. CT55555 (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing a typo hardly counts as a major, unreasonable or objectionable change to the deletion rationale. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E is a very specific justification, whereas WP:BLP is wide ranging. I'd have responded differently if you started by mentioning BLP1E. The edit without any strikethrough now makes it looks to anyone reading that I avoided the BLP1E issue. If anyone reads this far, the earlier award, the magazine article, the organization she founded, are all reasons that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply and the essay WP:NOTBLP1E excellently explains that even minor stuff before or after a major event remove the commonly-misunderstood BLP1E justification to delete. CT55555 (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I already explained above: the award is not a notability claim if you cannot source it to media coverage to establish the notability of the award; awards that have to be sourced to the awarding organization's own self-published content about themselves cannot make their winners notable for winning them, and only awards that get media coverage can do that. Founding an organization is not a notability claim if you have to depend on the organization's self-published content about itself to source her founding of it; that only becomes a notability claim if you can source it to media coverage about her founding of said organization. You explicitly said that the magazine article discusses her in the context of her personal weight loss goals, which means it isn't support for notability — it would be fine for use as sourcing for stray facts after her notability for other reasons was already fully established, but it does not contribute to making her notable because it isn't about her doing anything that would constitute a notability claim. If the only notable thing she has any media coverage for is resigning from city council just five hours after her appointment, then she most certainly is a BLP1E — awards that don't get media coverage don't contribute to notability, work that doesn't get media coverage doesn't contribute to notability, diet and exercise profiles don't contribute to notability. Bearcat (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that BLP1E applies. I referenced WP:NOTBLP1E and you've not comemnted on that, so I'll be more explicit. BLP1E says not to have an article only if three criteria are met. One of them is If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual
She's been appearing in the news since a while ago. Maybe you missed page 46 here Sadly it's a scan off an offline source, so I don't know the source, but I think it's fair to conclude that this award-winning, organization-founding, news-appearing person who took a role at city council is not current and is also not likely going to remain a low profile individual. CT55555 (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "miss" that; it's a primary source, self-published by a directly affiliated organization, which is not support for notability at all as it isn't GNG-worthy third party media coverage. An award can only make its winners notable for winning it if it's an award that gets GNG-worthy media coverage to establish the notability of the award; an award cannot make its winners notable for winning it if you have to depend on content self-published by non-media organizations she was directly affiliated with. Bearcat (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Program aims at helping Jamaica's kids" (and sorry, page 47 in the link above) is self published. And I don't accept your dismissal of the Jet Magazine article either. For BLP1E to apply, you need to somehow justify rejecting both of them and also argue that she's going to remain low profile. All that needs to apply for BLP1E to justify deletion. CT55555 (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Share is still a minor community hyperlocal in Toronto covering her in a purely local-interest context that doesn't meet any Wikipedia notability criteria, and even if you can find something that looks like a newspaper article it still isn't a usable source if there's no way to identify the date on which it was published — one absolutely essential feature of any source is the degree to which it is or isn't recoverable (e.g. from archiving databases or newspaper microfilms) if the currently-available weblink ever dies, so a proper source always needs to provide all of the information needed to locate it if somebody ever has to go hunting for it again because the existing weblink gets taken down. So a copy of a small hyperlocal newspaper's article being embedded inside an otherwise primary source PDF is not a GNG-worthy source if it doesn't identify the date on which the newspaper actually published that article, because it doesn't provide sufficient information to recover the article if that PDF is ever taken off its host site.
GNG is not just "count up all the media sources and keep anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number" — GNG does also take into account the context of what any given source is covering the person for, so a source that exists in the context of a person's weight loss goals simply is not contributing anything to the notability equation. It would be fine as supplementary verification of stray facts after her notability had already been nailed to the wall by sources that were covering her in notable contexts, but it doesn't add notability points because it isn't about her doing a notable thing. It's the same principle whereby a person isn't necessarily notable enough for an encyclopedia article just because the homes section of their local newspaper did a profile on the interior design of their condo — having a lovely home isn't a notability criterion per se, so a source that's covering somebody in that context is not a GNG-building source just because it came from a newspaper. It could be used to support additional facts if the person already had sufficient other coverage in more notable contexts to pass a Wikipedia inclusion test, but it doesn't make that person notable because it isn't about them doing an encyclopedically notable thing.
As for the question of "high" vs. "low" profile, a person's place on that scale isn't determined by weight loss profiles and local community involvement awards that have to be sourced to the awards' own self-published websites about themselves: it's determined by the extent to which somebody does or doesn't have a claim to broad significance to the entire country or world. A person might have a significant profile in her own local community, and still not be high-profile for the purposes of an international encyclopedia — I live in Toronto and had never heard of Rosemarie Bryan in my life until June 24, and it's profoundly unlikely that the average resident of Vancouver, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Montreal, New York City, Stockholm or Johannesburg had ever heard of her (or will ever hear of her again) either. So for the purposes of an international encyclopedia, the highness or lowness of her profile isn't a question of how much profile she does or doesn't have and is or isn't likely to retain within Ward 1 Etobicoke, it's a question of how much profile she does or doesn't have and is or isn't likely to retain across Canada and/or internationally. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Robin Buxton Potts would beg to differ. And even deletion here wouldn't preclude the recreation of a redirect to the ward; deletion and redirection are not mutually contradictory outcomes, and the only difference hinges on whether there's any value in retaining the edit history of a full standalone article behind a redirect or not. Bearcat (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While every listed councillor in the links above has a page, indeed you are correct that one other very recently appointed councillor does not yet have a page. I'll probably create one for her in the next few days, now that I know this. I hope people will see the larger point, that Toronto City Councillors very much tend to have articles. CT55555 (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to create an article about Robin Buxton Potts — the depth and quality of reliable GNG-worthy sourcing needed to do it just isn't there. As much as I might wish it were, because she's my city councillor now, it just isn't. Toronto city councillors tend to get articles, yes, but that's because they tend to have substantial and ongoing coverage of their work on the council, enabling us to write substantive articles about their political significance that pass WP:NPOL #2; it's not an guaranteed inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to serve on council for more than five hours before resigning. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do respect that. But as @Oaktree b first pointed out, quitting within hours of a high profile appointment is unavoidably newsworthy, unique, notable, maybe we should fine the Guinness Book of Records and alert them about the new entry they need to make. CT55555 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reason for the two sentences that already existed in the ward's article. It is not a reason for a full standalone BLP of a person who has no other basis for notability because you have to depend on primary sources to expand the article due to a lack of other media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She works for the Salvation Army here in Toronto, I was hoping to find something about that, but, not much else turns up. Oaktree b (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete/redirect As per comments by Beccaynr above and not wanting to repear the same arguments, I'm not seeing enough for me to say it passes WP:GNG. There is some independant coverage, yes, but not what I'd call significant. WP:TOOSOON at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have just found this bundle of documents, that includes three media articles about the subject. The first three pages includes media articles are follows:
  1. Tamara Shephard, Etobicoke resident to send toys to Jamaica for Christmas, 6 Dec 2000, Etobicoke Guardian
  2. Sabrina Divell, Etobicoke woman offers expertise to Jamaican government, 4 Aug 2000, Etobicoke Guardian
  3. Tamara Shephard, Sharing hope across the miles, 3 Dec 2000, Scarborough Mirror
This has allowed me to add details about her education and her meeting with the Jamaican prime minister in 2000. reducing the reliance on content written by her or her employer. Coverage is local, but the essay WP:NOTBLP1E speaks to that. And while the articles involve interviews, I think they suggest notability and speak to the WP:BLP1E issues that I've disagreed with above, specifically rejecting the idea that she is known for one event and also rejecting the idea that she is a low profile individual. CT55555 (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the Who is a low-profile individual explanatory essay linked from WP:BLP1E, in the media attention section, low-profile includes May have been quoted or even profiled in a local or special-interest newspaper, website, magazine or other publication, so local interview-based coverage does not appear to help mitigate the concern about WP:BLP1E, and limited secondary content does not contribute much to WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability. Beccaynr (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with everything Bearcat writes above. It looks like the article is really about a tweet which prompted her resignation and the rest was built around that to support its inclusion (that's not the order in the article, but I'm guessing it was precomposed offline.)CorrTimes (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Judging from CT55555's contribution history, it looks like the real purpose of the Bryan article was to promote Canadaland news editor Johnathan Goldsbie, whose tweets got her fired. Not a good reason to have a negative article about someone so obscure. CorrTimes (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify its WP:TOOSOON >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Bearcat and Beccaynr. She fails BLP1E handily, and the idea that the "Spirit of Etobicoke" award has more than an epsilon fraction of the prestige necessary to pass ANYBIO or any other award-based criterion is frankly baffling. This woman is a low-profile individual whose sole alleged source of notability is a trivial event that will be exceedingly unlikely to attract sustained coverage. Scrounging up scattered mentions and trivia from hyper-local papers actually makes this even more unencyclopedic as it just increases the ratio of UNDUE:DUE content. JoelleJay (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wouxun[edit]

Wouxun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted article created by a blocked sock, fails WP:NCORP criteria for notability. A WP:BEFORE search does not reveal SIGCOV about the company, although I could find some information about the radios, mostly sales sites, or on the company's own website. Netherzone (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2022 (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 Bart Allen. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Impulse (DC Comics)[edit]

Impulse (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some kind of weird, expanded disambiguation page on a shared name used by three characters. One of the characters seems completely unrelated, while the other two are actually connected. The unrelated character is a redirect. The connected ones currently have articles, but I've nominated one of them for deletion. There doesn't look to be anything in terms of sourcing indicating the shared name is at all notable, so this should probably redirect to Bart Allen after being deleted. TTN (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. TTN (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At the very least, the entire "In Other Media" section should be removed - it is entirely only about Bart, and is completely duplicated at Bart Allen#In other media. My immediate thought was that this should be a Redirect to Bart Allen, as he is the character that is by far the most known by this name. But, while I haven't taken a close look at the Irey West AFD, I would hazard a guess that at the very least, its probably going to wind up getting merged to a character list rather than being outright deleted, in which case this article would still be somewhat useful as just a normal, non-"expanded" disambiguation page to distinguish between Bart and Irey. I'm going to hold off on making any kind of official recommendation for now, though. Rorshacma (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bart Allen - After giving it some thought, this would definitely be the best way to go. The "Kent Shakespeare" version is not notable under this name at all, and even if the Irey West article is kept or merged, readers can be directed to it via a hatnote on the Bart Allen article rather than a separate disambiguation page. Rorshacma (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bart Allen, I guess. The other two weren't notable under the alias, and anyone knowledgeable enough about them to search the name can find them without the help of a DAB page. Gotta say, I'm stunned there's not an article about the 89-issue comic series. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bart Allen per above. 99.9% of the time Impulse refers to him, and I don't think the other characters with that name warrant a separate article for Impulse.Rhino131 (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let's hold on to this page as a WP:SETINDEX due to Bart Allan not being the only character to use the name Impulse. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2022 (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, and no-one wanted to delete. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Warlock[edit]

Withdrawn due to additional sources being found that achieve GNG BrigadierG (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Elizabeth Warlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It pains me because a cursory google search does very much seem to suggest she **should** be notable, but there's a major WP:V problem here.

https://geniimagazine.com/wiki/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Warlock

The above cites a handful of magazine pages in which she is mentioned, but the awards she's won seem to be non-notable, and I can't find any copies of those magazines on archive.org or elsewhere.

On that basis, I must sadly conclude a failure of WP:INHERITED. If someone can find any copies of those magazines, it would be a good contribution to Wikipedia BrigadierG (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Magic. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some sources. She won a bunch of awards, although I don't think any of them are wikipedia notable.
    She's mentioned in google books, for example here in 1977 for being the only woman at a magic event.
    Canadian Review. (1977). Canada: Pomeroy, Carter.. Likewise I added another passing mention to the article that notes how unusual it was to be a woman magician in 1983. She was the first woman to win one of the awards.
    It's borderline, but I think we can say the Birmingham Evening Mail source is significant coverage, the rest are not, but combined might meet WP:GNG. To me she is most notable as a woman trailblazer in a man's world. Waiting for other comments before !voting. CT55555 (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Great work, thank you very much for apparently doing what I was unable to. I'm happy to withdraw this nomination on the back of these sources. BrigadierG (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A fantastic result. Thanks for withdrawing. CT55555 (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I found the best sources on the Wikipedia Library and its link to ProQuest. Most editors can access both for free. CT55555 (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much! I'm an engineer - this librarian stuff is new to me, but I'm learning fast. BrigadierG (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Think of the wikipedia library as a searchable database of things that is normally behind paywalls. Think of it as an alternative to Google. And then think of ProQuest as another alternative whereby it tends to have historical news articles, while the main library tends to have academic stuff, but does also have news and books. CT55555 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Very Friendly Neighbors[edit]

The Very Friendly Neighbors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they have IMDb pages, or even just because the director has a biographical article -- rather, they need to show some evidence of significance, such as noteworthy film awards and/or a WP:GNG-worthy volume of critical attention from professional film critics. But this literally just states that the film exists, the end, and its existence is "referenced" to a Blogspot blog rather than a reliable or notability-building source -- and even on a Newspapers.com search for coverage in its own time, all I got was one published review (a start, but not enough all by itself) and one 28-word blurb announcing a screening (not substantive or notability-building at all), which means there simply isn't enough proper coverage here. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found the same review, added it, then found nothing else out there. There's really not much else to suggest notability and honestly, I don't even think that a redirect is needed. There's honestly not much of anything out there about this film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Reid (writer)[edit]

Greg Reid (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable author and speaker, all coverage is either in passing, unreliable or puff pieces. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Own McKamikaze Highlanders[edit]

Queen's Own McKamikaze Highlanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable fictional group that only appeared in a single sketch of a single episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus. There are no reliable sources included in the article. Searches just bring up synopses/summaries of the sketch or very brief mentions. I considered simply Redirecting this somewhere, but not only is it not a particularly likely search term, but the only feasible place that I could find as a potential target was List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes, which did not strike me as being particularly useful. Rorshacma (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American Metal[edit]

American Metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking significant coverage per WP:NFF, all sources are based on a press release announcement about the the distribution rights, lacking actual coverage of the production, the content of the film and its impact BOVINEBOY2008 15:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; The film exceeds the necessities of WP:NFF, which requires sources to prove "Filming has started, it has a set release date, and cast." This nomination is pointless and will most likely result in keeping the article in the mainspace. Cardei012597 (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This quotation is not even from WP:NFF. The guideline states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". The converse is not necessarily true. In fact, later in the guideline, it says "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." This production does not appear to be notable as it has not received any coverage. BOVINEBOY2008 16:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is WP:TOOSOON and the sources all seem to be press releases. Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per WP:NFF, WP:NYF and WP:CRYSTAL The Film Creator (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. It's just too soon. There's not really any coverage out there about this film that doesn't stem from the press release or the same period of time. We just need something more here. I even restricted the search so that it only produced results released prior to May 2022 and it brought up nothing usable. Searching for anything about John Travolta filming in Georgia (that was published prior to the announcement PR) brings up unusable stuff as well, as no film title is given and it's just locals mentioning that filming took place. In other words, the film was kept tightly under wraps until it was officially announced, which isn't unheard of when it stars big name actors. All that can be done here is to just wait for additional coverage that isn't based off of the PR announcement. With most films we have to wait until the film releases and the reviews come in, as it's also very common for films to sit on a shelf for X amount of time for whatever reason. (Reasons can range from it being a stinker to the company not being able to obtain a distributor to even just the production company running out of money for that specific film campaign.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:09, 20 July 2022 (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. It's snowing! ✗plicit 10:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albania in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest[edit]

Albania in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the articles in this series were created with the assumption that this would be an annual event where grouping a country or region's performance on one page would create a full picture of their performance/history without switching between many pages. See San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest for an example of what it could have been. With the contest's cancelation after only one edition, these articles will not grow larger than what they are today. Each article in this series duplicates other articles. "Origins of the contest" is copied from the main contest page, all of the information in the "History" sections is about either copied from Bala Turkvision Song Contest 2015 or saying that the 2016 and 2017 contests were canceled (every article with the same copied text). With only one contest ever having taken place, the participation tables are just one line from the 2015 page. Dispersing this information across several pages is not helpful to the reader and does not add to their understanding of the event. Grk1011 (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages that have the same issue:

Azerbaijan in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bashkortostan in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Belarus in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Crimea in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gagauzia in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Georgia in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iran in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kabardino-Balkaria in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Karachay-Cherkessia in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kazakhstan in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Khakassia in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kosovo in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kumyk in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kyrgyzstan in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
North Macedonia in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moscow in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Romania in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sandžak in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stavropol Krai in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tatarstan in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Turkey in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tuva in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ukraine in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uzbekistan in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yakutia in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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 10:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Arnot (physician)[edit]

David Arnot (physician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not inherited - only claims to notability appear to be the patients he had. Melcous (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Arnot prescribed talismans for the use of the pregnant women, such as stones and belts, which may be of interest of historians of medicine and pregnancy.Unoquha (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unoquha is there a source that says that makes some claim that he was specifically notable in doing this, rather than just giving him as an example of a practice, which seem to be what the article currently suggests? Melcous (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is well sourced and his affects on patients are notable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, what he did was notable and his article has okay sources as well and plenty of them - 19 at last count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.156.253 (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please specify what you mean by "what he did" that is notable? I'm open to withdrawing the nomination, but I'm looking for someone to clarify what notability criteria is met here - to me it still reads as "he lived, he had a profession and practiced it as people in his day did, and he once donated money to someone", all of which are pretty run of the mill. Melcous (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not calling this n/c as there is literally zero policy-based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Despite a good field of references, I do not believe notability is established simply because he treated some notable patients. Where for example is evidence of wider contributions in his field, for example, academic writing, work with universities, recognition by government, development of new treatments or theories and so on. To put it another way, if this doctor were alive today but treated a similar number of minor gentry, would it be notable unless he had a wider impact on his field in Scotland? While I think this is a great piece of research, Wikipedia:Notability is not established and the article cuts a fine line with WP:NOR. Coldupnorth (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It gives me no pleasure to assert delete, and I'm sorry to the page creator who has made a good faith effort here. What we seem to be lacking is evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I did a WP:BEFORE myself; it's clear this fellow did exist and can be verified. However, I don't think sufficient sourcing has been presented that he was more highly regarded than any other working physician of the day. Because of the lack of policy-based assertions, as noted by one re-lister, I'd suggest the closer perform a soft delete so the page creator's work (including page history) is preserved when better sourcing is found and is so easily restored. BusterD (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did my best to find some sourcing for this article. But while there's this genealogical work calling him a "celebrated physician" the evidence presented there is that he treated thus and such and it was preserved in records. It doesn't quite add up to what I'd expect to see, e.g. a contemporaneous obituary calling him that. It feels like the reconstruction of a family tradition rather than a third party judgment. There's also a 1927 novel David Arnot by Michael Barrington about a Scottish physician that seems like it's maybe related, but I can't find a source to establish the connection. --Jahaza (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Andrew (AR12Gaming)[edit]

Nick Andrew (AR12Gaming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT, I was unable to find sources stating why this person is notable. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 15:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Drago[edit]

Marco Drago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primarily notable for WP:ONEEVENT. He did feature prominently in several articles about the event, including one in "Science," but not for anything particularly notable about HIM, other than being the first person to read the message about LIGO detection. Insufficient other grounds for notability. PianoDan (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional regiments of the British Army[edit]

List of fictional regiments of the British Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally WP:OR. No reliable and independent sources as needed by WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:NOT. Jontesta (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2022 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 01:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Medhi[edit]

Deep Medhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Except The Assam Tribune ref (more than an essay, suspicious promotion), all are primary sources. Fails WP:ACADEMIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:RS and fails minimum 3 coverage refs. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 14:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Yarborough[edit]

Tom Yarborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mayors of places need sources to show notability. We have none here. My search for sources turned up not even one useable source. There are other Tom Yarboroughs who might merit an article, but I cannot find sourcing on this one. The only thing I found was this [26] which is a primary document, a communication between agents of the city and people trying to force the city to change how it elects members of its city council. They mention Yarborough, but seem to be sourcing all their knowledge of him to Wikipedia. So we have no reliable secondary sources at all even confirming he was mayor, let alone the claim he was the first "black" person to be a mayor in California. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, and so to state someone was the first African-American person to serve as mayor in California, we should have actually reliable sources that support this statement. I would not trust agents of the city to have fully vetted such a claim period, let alone when they have vested interest to argue a certain view of how non-white people fare in politics in the city, but when they are transparently sourcing such a claim only to an unsourced Wikipedia article this becomes circular reasoning. I am unconvinced that we have the expertise to determine which first X type in Y area are notable, we need multiple reliable secondary sources mentioning the person to demonstrate such an intersection is notable. Here though we only have an unsourced claim of being the first African-American mayor in California, no sourcing to show even if this fact is true, let alone that it is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PVR Raja[edit]

PVR Raja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO This is primarily a puff piece and all the competitions he entered were local heats etc Gbawden (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Tennessee Cyber Conference[edit]

Middle Tennessee Cyber Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

spammy, non notable conference with no coverage PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable conference; three of the four sources are from the conference's website. A Google search doesn't reveal any coverage. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 10:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rangsinobhadol Yugala[edit]

Rangsinobhadol Yugala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can’t read Thai so there may be sources I can’t access but the th.wiki version of this article is sourced to official court circulars about status and title. That doesn’t equate to in-depth coverage in multiple reliable independent sources and it’s not our job to document every minor member of royal families, Mccapra (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Thailand. Mccapra (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There's considerable coverage on her death (with brief obituaries) in the traditional news sites (Daily News[31], Matichon[32], Voice TV[33], Khao Sod[34]), but most of them are based on her son's announcement Facebook post and information available online (with some citing the Thai Wikipedia). As is usual, the daily royal news piece provided by the National News Bureau about the royal attendance of her funeral by Princess Soamsawali includes an obituary covering the subject's life[35]. It's rather unfortunate that reporters these days rely on Wikipedia for information, but the subject is the sort of person whose death would have generated the same news coverage anyway. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordyn Faiczak[edit]

Jordyn Faiczak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. All current references on the article are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the recent expansion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources added in the expansion are all trivial mentions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Care to clarify how this multi-paragraph profile of Faiczak is a trivial mention? Samsmachado (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes from the subject do not count. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discounting quotations from the subject and (for the sake of argument) leaving out paragraphs that do not mention the subject by name still leaves us with several paragraphs totalling to approx. 300 words. This is hardly trivial as per the definition outlined at Wikipedia:Trivial mentions. Also, for future reference, if your critique is to do with an excess of quotations, that is a problem of independence (due to the possibility of close association with the subject if the article is exclusively or almost exclusively quotations) not triviality (for clarification on the difference, see WP:GNG). Samsmachado (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2022 (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 13:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United States Distance Learning Association[edit]

United States Distance Learning Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged as advertisement 13 years ago, previous PROD contest with no significant improvements and the issues tagged in 2009 remain unaddressed. The article subject does not meet the notability standards set out in WP:NCORP and deletion is right for the article as no editing can fix the quality of the article as no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify. There is consensus that the article is currently unsuitable for mainspace. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accord Network[edit]

Accord Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed with no improvement. WP:BEFORE finds no reliable sources discussing the subject. Members are notable but notability not inherited so fails WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Christianity. Slywriter (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- An organisation to coordinate the work of several notable NGOs, coming from an evangelical viewpoint is likely itself to be notable. The present article is a bad one in that it is highly incomplete, but that is NOT ground for deletion, whether via PROD or AFD. The right course is to tag the article for improvement. I am not in a position to improve it because I am the wrong side of the Atlantic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Draft, agreed with @Peterkingiron that this stub article I made is a bad one and highly incomplete, and yet the subject matter is itself notable enough for inclusion. I'll try to improve it when I can, until then move to draft if consensus holds that its not suitable for mainspace.
Also, I did make several improvements before removing the PROD, including a reference to journal published by this umbrella organization. Jaredscribe (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The group was founded in 197X as AERDO, the "Association of Evangelical Relief and Development Organizations", and recently changed its name to ACCORD. Searching for this term WP:BEFORE nominating, may yield a different recommendation from @Slywriter Jaredscribe (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What source was added? An unsourced line of text and a link to a database entry were added, neither of which show any notability. Both of the above !votes show no basis in policy as they make no attempt to show WP:GNG is met. Also, a WP:BEFORE was conducted on both names with same result of zilch. Put effort into improving the article if sources exist, instead of trying to handwave away that it does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NORGSlywriter (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You searched for "Association of Evangelical Relief and Development Organizations" and "AERDO" and didn't find the many Google books hits?[36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. Christianity Today reported on its founding[43] in 1986. Offutt and Reynolds lengthy paper here[44] is published by ACCORD, but its references could be mined.Jahaza (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All but one of the journals appears to be a passing mention that does not satisfy in-depth coverage. Can't access CT to assess. Ah well, another stub will survive with zero effort put in by the creator to show notability in the article. Slywriter (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:PAYWALL is never a valid argument for deletion. Christianity Today is WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - clearly not ready for article space. No meaningful claim of notability and totally inadequate referencing. Deb (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify until it has been filled out, currently doesn't appear to meet NORG HighKing++ 13:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - no meaningful claim of notability. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:24, 27 July 2022 (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! 05:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amabile Choirs of London, Canada[edit]

Amabile Choirs of London, Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Choir doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 18 July 2022 (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 Southampton F.C. managers. ✗plicit 13:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Knight[edit]

Cecil Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was created by sockpuppet account Unclebert11 in 2010. Links have rotted and I have tried to find other sources, but there is no reliable sources to reference. Little to no content. This was the first manager of Southampton in 1894, but other than that, there is no other information about him. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’d be happy to keep the article if there was reliable material to work with but seeing as there is little information on Knight, I’m not sure it’s possible to keep, also seeing how little it has been edited in the past 12 years. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2022 (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. While IMDB isn't a reliable source, it appears there is agreement that the coverage found during the discussion is sufficient. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Melton[edit]

Troy Melton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find any reliable sources with a WP:BEFORE. Does not appear to be a notable topic. ––FormalDude talk 11:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Military, and California. ––FormalDude talk 11:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's nothing notable based on the unsourced military service information. A quick search for possible decorations also turned up nothing. Others may have views on his stunt career, but from a military aspect there's nothing notable. Intothatdarkness 12:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable as he appeared in numerous notable films and television programs. He has sources.
  • Stunt Man Article A biography and the news article is about him. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm only commenting on the military service because this got listed in AfD military. Just serving in the Air Corps isn't notable on its own, and there's no indication he did anything notable while serving. If there are sources about his stunt career, you might consider using them to expand the article into something that's not based solely on IMDB. He seems to have had an extensive career as a stuntman. Intothatdarkness 17:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If IMDB is wrong about his military service, then perhaps IMDB should also be notified as to the error, however, for now, it is the one reference I had to note/verify his service to buff out his bio here on Wikipedia for fans/users...but the IMDB ref is primarily to focus on his Acting/Stunt Career, so if his Service cannot be verified, feel free to remove that bit. However, I don't think the whole page should be deleted, as I created it to note his many roles in Gunsmoke, the Source being taken Directly from the Credits that run at the end of Each Episode on the DVDs. He was mentioned in so many episodes that it seemed to be a glaring lack of a link on the List of Gunsmoke Episodes page. GreyElfGT (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note, prior to adding Bio/Filmography info here, there was nothing on the Troy Melton page except a Redirect to the movie page "Young Guns of Texas" which seemed entirely inappropriate. GreyElfGT (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't vote delete, I simply commented on one aspect of the article. His military service appears to have been ordinary (or at least didn't generate any awards that would contribute to notability from that angle). In any case, he would be far more notable for his stunt work if it can be properly verified. If I recall correctly, iMDB isn't considered RS in most cases. There do appear to be other, proper, sources for that, though. Intothatdarkness 23:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "...iMDB not RS.." ?? what do you mean by "RS" ? ...again, I'm mainly concerned with linking actors to the Gunsmoke list of episodes page... I'm updating that page with Guest Cast credits for each episode as I get done watching the DVDs, so the source (at least for Gunsmoke) is a Direct Source. I'm simply using IMDB as a confirming ref.... and to buff out the rest of the page... is that not appropriate? As for other confirming sources, (albeit for uncredited Stunt work, versus actual Credited Acting Roles) it looks like a few confirming refs have been already found (above) in this delete discussion, so if someone could add those to the page in the appropriate places, I'd be grateful. Again, I changed the Redirect to a actual Actor/Person Page just to get the ball rolling in the hopes that others will contribute and add whatever necessary refs are needed... and/or corrections.... as well as a Person InfoBox, Actor Photo, et al. For instance, I also created a new page for "Tom Reese (actor)" from Gunsmoke Credits, and unlike my Troy Melton edits, no one seems to have a prob with the Tom Reese page... it's not a candidate for deletion, and several subsequent edits have already been made by other users/bots, and I even got a Thank You for it... and just today, I created a new page for Edmund Hashim (another glaring omission at Wikipedia). Anyway... thanks for the clarification and comments. Hope we can get this resolved quickly. GreyElfGT (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • RS means reliable source. IMDb accepts user submitted data and is not very good about actually confirming any of it. This opens the door for people to add just about anything to an IMDb listing, whether it be true or false. One of the best examples I can give as far as how bad the verification can be at IMDb actually involves a Marvel film. Someone named Gretel Ashzinger (think that's her name) actually managed to add her name to the IMDb listing for one of the Captain America films, Winter Soldier, claiming that she was going to be playing She-Hulk. How we found out about it was that she tried creating a Wikipedia article where she'd listed this role. Looking back at the deleted history, it looks like she also tried claiming she was in Agents of SHIELD as well. My point is that IMDb really can't be used to confirm anything. You can use it as a starting point, but anything you take should be verified in another source. At no point should IMDb be the sole place you get any info. You can use primary sources (as long as they can be verified) or independent, secondary reliable sources, but IMDb is neither as far as Wikipedia goes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all fine and dandy, but if not IMDB then What? Name some Primary Sources where I can find Reliable Ref's about an Actor's Bio & Roles throughout their entire career, including Birth/Death & Real Name (vs Stage Name)... especially those Actors that have roles dating back before I was born. I mean, I even tried creating a page for James Almanzar based SOLELY on NINE Verifiable Episodes of Gunsmoke taken DIRECTLY from the DVD Credits, not bothering to copy all the IMDB Bio/TV/Filmography info to the page, and it wound up getting Draft-Sandboxed because it didn't "show significant coverage" ... I mean, I can't even get the ball rolling with what I CAN verify, let alone for any other notable roles in other shows/movies... This is TOO Frustrating. GreyElfGT (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreyElfGT: There is a long list of sources that the Wikipedia community has deemed generally reliable or unreliable at WP:RSP. ––FormalDude talk 11:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is to be built on coverage in reliable secondary sources that are indepdent of the subject. IMDb is not reliable, we cannot use it. Wikipedia is not to be built on primary sources. We need to find secodnary sources that are reliable and indepdent of the subject. We need more than one such sources. The TV guide entry may meet that, but I am less than convinced it is an indepth mention, that is another requirement. Wikipedia follows secondary source coverage of topics, we do not cover topics that have only been mentioned in databases like IMDb and in passing mentions and primary sources. So unless people can show more and better sourcing, we need to delete this article. The listed added sources above may be enough, but we need clearer indications of exactly where in the source the information is. Also, we need to be sure these are actual substantial sources. Let me be clear, Wikipedia is not supposed to be based on primary sources. In creating articles you want to consult secondary sources, not primary sources. We need to cut way down on direct references to the US census, immigration records and the social security death index in articles. The US census can be mentioned if you find a secondary source that provides analysis and context for the US census mention, but Wikipedia editors should not assume they have the expertise or competence to directly use the US census as a source and should avoid doing so. If a fact, such as a year of birth, is not asserted by reliable secondary sources, we should not be asserting it based on primary sources period. The point of Wikipedia is not to generate new knowledge from primary sources, but to collect and make easily availalbe knowledge contained in secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are clearly some secondary sources for this individual, as indicated in the Keep vote above. With regard to Gunsmoke, there are some secondary sources available for the show (and I believe the article lists most of them). Alternately, it seems if you can find enough obituaries for someone they're considered notable. Intothatdarkness 14:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I updated the page with Two of the Ref's so graciously provided above for "Hollywood Stunt Performers" but I didn't have access to the OTHER Two Ref's, so I could neither verify their Content, nor Cite Page #'s or other details, but if anyone else can, please do so. These two are:
    • Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 1996
    • the "Stunt Man Article" at The Tennessean from Nashville, Tennessee
I also added a link to his Filmography @ Turner Classic Movies... Hopefully y'all consider that a more RS source for his Credits? If not, I would still ask you to point me at some other site for a complete list that is considered "RS" as I'll need more outlets for verification in the future, if I am to confirm & provide Ref's for other Actor pages. So, the other question is, what type of Source is it considered when you Transcribe Directly from the DVD Credits? Primary, Secondary or what? I can think of no better verification than taking it directly from the Publisher's product (i.e., the DVDs published by CBS Broadcasting, Inc). Again, Thank You all for your help/mentor-ship, and will my most recent edits qualify to remove the Candidate for Deletion template? GreyElfGT (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note, his Roles in Gunsmoke are not just as a Stuntman; he also has Speaking/Character Actor roles (as noted in the page's TV credits), and I assume that's also true for the rest of his 40-50 year career. GreyElfGT (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GreyElfGT: You should be able to view the Tennessean article here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Thanks! That's a great help in that it confirms the bit about "migrating to LA during the Great Depression" (i.e., circa 1931-1935, beginning when he was 12) AND about his Service (a 3-year tour starting in '42, w/31 months overseas). I'll go ahead & add this ref to the page. GreyElfGT (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the obituaries in the performing arts ref, but one thing was that it was the wrong book I've cited. It's corrected. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see at least two pieces of SIGCOV: Hollywood Stunt Performers, 1910s-1970s: A Biographical Dictionary, 2d ed. and the article from The Tennessean (available here). There are also two that I do not have access to but appear to be SIGCOV: Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 1996 and Hollywood Stunt Performers: A Dictionary and Filmography of Over 600 Men and Women, 1922-1996. Even if the last two are not significant, we still have two pieces of SIGCOV, meeting GNG ("A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has received some notable coverage, agree with comments above. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:24, 27 July 2022 (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. WP:SK1: No rationale for deletion provided. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shahmiriyat-e-Kashmir[edit]

Shahmiriyat-e-Kashmir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PQR01 (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2022 (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 11:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zanjan Khanate[edit]

Zanjan Khanate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per [45]. There doesn't seem to be any proof that this entity existed. Leading sources such as Islamica, EI3 and Iranica don't even mention it in their article about the Afshars, which apparently ruled this entity. HistoryofIran (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I can’t find a single scholarly work referring to this alleged khanate. There are lots of wiki mirrors and the whole thing is based on what two sources apparently say. Even on the face of it the claim makes little sense since the ruling family in Zanjan is claimed to have been Afsharid, following independence from …… the Afsharids. Someone has garbled the source or this is some sort of fake history. Mccapra (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it lacks verification of notability. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2022 (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 10:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Tabrez Ansari[edit]

Saman Tabrez Ansari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Twice rejected at AfC before being moved into mainspace, this promotionally-worded biography is largely supported by multiple instances of a similarly worded promotional item: see the "By arrangement" item reproduced in Asian Age and Deccan Chronicle and the updated and even more promotional Outlook item plus a DNA India item flagged as "sponsored publication and does not have journalistic/editorial involvement". None of this indicates that the subject meets any of the WP:CREATIVE criteria; perhaps an Instagram influencer may meet WP:ENT criterion 2, but I think better references would be needed to demonstrate this. AllyD (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Deccan Chronicle and The Asian Age articles are word-for-word exactly the same. If these articles were written independently by journalists from these reputed platforms, do you really think they would plagiarize each other to that extent? No, the platforms are obviously just reprinting a paid promotional piece provided to them by the subject's PR team. The byline for both articles even acknowledges that they were made "by arrangement" (with the subject). Not to mention the Deccan Chronicle article has an explicit disclaimer that says: "No Deccan Chronicle journalist was involved in creating this content. The group also takes no responsibility for this content." Therefore these sources do not satisfy the notability criteria which requires independent coverage of the subject. Bennv123 (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:N is not established. Agree with above resources are not independent. KSAWikipedian (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2022 (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! 05:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Nakaziro[edit]

Daisy Nakaziro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per sources found by Monfrontieres and his 2022 African Women Cup of Nations reasoning. Also, I found these sources which show her notability in Uganda: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GiantSnowman: More sources have been found. North America1000 08:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - not all of the sources above are SIGCOV, but enough of them are to demonstrate notability. GiantSnowman 10:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
The Sports Nation 1 Yes ? I cannot find info on their editing policies or who their writers are ~ transactional, but with a substantial amount of background detail ? Unknown
UGSports 1 No the author is a FIFA licensed agent and therefore has a vested interest in promoting players ? same issue as source 1 ~ barely more than a listicle, but does have substantial info ✘ No
Swift Sports Uganda ? No Swift Sports blog post ~ Roughly the same material as source 1 ✘ No
Voice of Bugerere 1 ? no info on author ? same as with source 1 ~ match recap, but does go into somewhat more detail on her background ? Unknown
UGSports 2 Yes but note that articles from the same newspaper are considered one source ? same issues as source 1 ~ transactional, but with a substantial amount of background detail ? Unknown
Voice of Bugerere 2 ? ? same issues as other VoB source No transactional ✘ No
Football256 No interview with little independent commentary ? same issues as other sources No interview ✘ No
The Sports Nation 2 No reprint of press release ? see source 1 No reprint of press release; transactional ✘ No
The Sports Nation 3 Yes but note that articles from the same newspaper are considered one source ? see source 1 ~ recap, but does have nontrivial commentary on her ? Unknown
NIM Sport UG No press release No news aggregator, digital marketing hub No transactional ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

If the sites are determined to be reliable then I think this is a weak keep. JoelleJay (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2022 (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 11:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements by Donald Trump[edit]

Endorsements by Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic is not notable per WP:NLIST as it has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. ––FormalDude talk 06:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Withdrawing nomination. ––FormalDude talk 14:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Lists. ––FormalDude talk 06:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well-sourced list of political endorsements by one of the most polarizing recent political figures. I would support expanding the article from a simple list to include the candidates' responses to Trump's endorsements and the effect it had (e.g. "X% of Trump-endorsed candidates won their elections) provided it is verifiable, but deletion is not the answer here. Frank Anchor 12:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY DELETE or redirect to Donald Trump. Wikipedia is not for endorsing anyone as per WP:NPOV. Regarding the comment by the above user, more than 60% of refs are from Trump's own Twitter handle (worth mentioning that Twitter suspended Trump's account permanently. Ref: Twitter source and TIME). About the rest of the refs, none supports the article subject instead of Trump's commentaries and PR. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 14:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOV does not apply here. This article is not endorsing any candidate or platform. Furthermore, the fact that 18 of the 81 references (22.2%, which is far from the 60% that User:NeverTry4Me falsely claimed) are from Twitter is not grounds for deletion particularly when a multitude of secondary sources are available for each case. As an example, Trump's 2018 endorsement of Mitt Romney (currently cited with a Trump twitter post) is also covered by CNN, ABC News, Time, Fox News, The New York Times, and many other authorities on U.S. news and politics. Frank Anchor 15:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the criteria for speedy deletion apply to this list. Glades12 (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as much as I have strong opinions about Trump, this list could be useful and seems well-sourced. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Category:Political endorsements exists but list what newspapers endorsed someone, and there are list of people who endorsed someone during a specific election. This is the only article where it just list everyone a single person endorsed. Should we have articles for every single person who ever endorsed a lot of people? Famous people, senators, or just former or current leaders of nations? Dream Focus 04:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say Should we have articles for every single person who ever endorsed a lot of people? I found it quite hypocritical that its good and ok for a page such as Social media use by Donald Trump and of Tax returns of Donald Trump (Do we have pages on every single person on their social media use or their tax returns? No but we have one for Trump becouse its notable) but somehow then it isn't the case for a page such as this. its just a fact that Trump is famous for his social media use, tax returns and also his Endorsements. La lopi (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Trump is still an influential figure in politics, and there are certainly enough sources for the article. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you could name a source that passes WP:NLIST that would be helpful. ––FormalDude talk 09:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He is "de-platformed". So much influence. Some people have an incentive to overstate his influence, in service of their agenda. Also, source count is never the basis for the creation of an article. If they are good sources, that's great. There's a way to incorporate endorsements into Wikipedia WP: ENDORSE. It means the source goes on the page of the endorsee, not the endorser. This page exists as an exception to the rule, it seems, to satiate political agendas, agendas that have no place on Wikipedia. That's my opinion. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC) — CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • If these sources are good for election pages such as 2022 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election then they are good for this page. or do you delate all these endoresment sources from all election pages.La lopi (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Trump is an inportant political figure and he will be a historical person, who is also famous for his political Endorsements. They have so many news articles and posts about Trump's endoresments. His endoresments are Big News in American politics. I say Keep. La lopi (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If they were big news in American politics, why are most of these entries unreliably sourced, and why are there no sources that talk about Trump endorsements as a group/set? ––FormalDude talk 09:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles that describe Trump's endorsements as a group include these from The New York Times ([52], [53]), Five Thirty-Eight, PBS, Politico, Fox News, I could keep going on. I agree the page could be written better, but the page certainly passes NLIST and other notability guidelines. Frank Anchor 12:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it well-sourced Kazanstyle (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have never seen another page on this encyclopedia that lists endorsements by an individual (rather, the inverse is usually what we see...a list of endorsers for a particular candidate or initiative). Even if it's sourced well, the motives behind the creation of this page seem nefarious. It seems like the aim here is to make a "black book" of politicians who have been "cursed" by the "evil" hand of Sith Trump, because the allure of the Dark Side is just that great. Basically, what is the point of this page? If the answer is, "it could be useful", that's not sufficient. This is undue scrutiny of a now-civilian's endorsements, and I don't think it belongs here. Also, it's redundant, if we list an endorsement here, and an endorsement on the candidates' pages. That's undesirable. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC) — CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. This topic has indeed been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources: Politico, NYT, The Hill, Axios, etc. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin clearly well sourced.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Also noting that the nomination has been withdrawn. Azuredivay (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Sharma Chakrapani[edit]

Ashish Sharma Chakrapani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mayor of a small town. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Haryana. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable as a politician or in general. Mccapra (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are enough articles online to prove notability you can check the updated references. Akhshats7 (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails WP:NPOL clearly. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 11:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  DIVINE  17:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mayors don't get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because they exist; the notability of a mayor hinges on being able to write and reliably source a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did in the mayor's chair, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the town, and on and so forth. But there's nothing like that here. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeoh Gun Heong[edit]

Yeoh Gun Heong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article on a Taiping painter, created in 2012 by WP:SPA Devlenyeoh. The closest that the article comes to a claim of notability is that the subject won an unspecified prize at a 1982 competition and had works in a Society's group shows in 1983-4, but these are insufficient for the WP:NARTIST criteria. Searches find little beyond cloned articles (example); searches on sites covering the Malaysian Watercolour Society find nothing either. Unless better can be found, this fails WP:NARTIST, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Malaysia. AllyD (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No hits in Jstory, Scholar or the NYT, two hits in Chinese I can't read. Might be found in offline or paper sources given the age. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not finding anything to indicate that this watercolorist meets WP criteria for notability per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. It seems that it may be a COI creation, and while that is not grounds for deletion, the lack of SIGCOV in reliable sources is. Netherzone (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2022 (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 Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps). The agreement here is that the subject is not notable enough to justify a separate article. Without any rebuttal against the "redirect" alternative, the result culminated as such. ✗plicit 10:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Nielsen[edit]

Hugo Nielsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnpacklambert is exactly right. WP:SPORTBASIC was amended earlier this year to say "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." No such SIGCOV has been presented here. Cbl62 (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Government Senior Secondary School Khejarla[edit]

Government Senior Secondary School Khejarla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILL institution, no indication of Notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2022 (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 Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps). The agreement here is that the subject is not notable enough to justify a separate article. Without any rebuttal against the "redirect" alternative, the result culminated as such. ✗plicit 10:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Nielsen[edit]

Ernst Nielsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2022 (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 Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps). Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aksel Nielsen (footballer)[edit]

Aksel Nielsen (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2022 (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. Withdrawn by nominator, per sources found by Robby. (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Nielsen (footballer, born 1953)[edit]

Allan Nielsen (footballer, born 1953) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2022 (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 10:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arno Nielsen[edit]

Arno Nielsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2022 (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 Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps). Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Nielsen (footballer)[edit]

Arthur Nielsen (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2022 (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 Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps). Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Nielsen (footballer, born 7 March 1951)[edit]

Benny Nielsen (footballer, born 7 March 1951) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2022 (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 Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps). The agreement here is that the subject is not notable enough to justify a separate article. Without any rebuttal against the "redirect" alternative, the result culminated as such. ✗plicit 10:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Nielsen (footballer, born 1932)[edit]

Erik Nielsen (footballer, born 1932) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and GiantSnowman. No WP:SIGCOV has been presented to support a policy-based argument to keep. Given how common the name "Erik Nielsen" is in Denmark (examples here and here), I also think that a redirect has negative value and potential for confusion. Cbl62 (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2022 (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 Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps). The agreement here is that the subject is not notable enough to justify a separate article. Without any rebuttal against the "redirect" alternative, the result culminated as such. ✗plicit 10:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Nielsen (footballer, born 1938)[edit]

Erik Nielsen (footballer, born 1938) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2022 (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 Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps). The agreement here is that the subject is not notable enough to justify a separate article. Without any rebuttal against the "redirect" alternative, the result culminated as such. ✗plicit 10:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Nielsen (Danish footballer)[edit]

Frank Nielsen (Danish footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Denmark. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found this source which shows his notability in Denmark. In addition, having spent 19 years at the same club as well as being a Danish international during the 1960s-80s, WP:BEFORE has not been done, since this is mostly about offline sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Das osmnezz. GiantSnowman 18:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNG requires multiple, indepth sources that are indepdent of each other and of the subject, and are secondary and reliable. Even if that one Danish source meets all those criteria, one source cannot be enough to pass GNG, and with none of the other sources meeting that criteria at all, we are still not at a GNG passing level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete three user generated databases for references is trivial coverage at best. And these are not reliable sources. More coverage is needed than the linked article provided above. Also, it is mostly an interview of this person at age 70. That is probably not a secondary source for Wikipedia purposes. Multiple independent (secondary) reliable sources with significant coverage is required. Notability has not been demonstrated. Fails GNG and NSPORTS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps), if no-one finds enough SIGCOV to keep. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Struway2 if nothing else can found on him, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage is non-existant. Junk references as per. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 10:17, 20 July 2022 (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 Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps). Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Nielsen (footballer)[edit]

Henry Nielsen (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2022 (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 Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps). Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Nielsen (footballer, born 1911)[edit]

John Nielsen (footballer, born 1911) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnpacklambert is exactly right. WP:SPORTBASIC was amended earlier this year to say "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." No such SIGCOV has been presented here. Cbl62 (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I also failed to find sources. If good sources are identified, please ping me. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet criterias for WP:GNG at least Kazanstyle (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2022 (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 Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps). Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Nielsen (footballer)[edit]

Kai Nielsen (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article hasn't scratched the surface, bias nomination in my view and this is a perfectly valid stub for an international footballer who played top flight football in Denmark for over six years. A true WP:BEFORE hasn't been done, as this is about Offline sources. Govvy (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you cite the offline sources you found? BilledMammal (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about me, it's about you failing to do WP:BEFORE. Govvy (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe I have behaved improperly please take it to the appropriate forum and limit this discussion to whether Kai Nielsen is notable; I note this isn't the first time you have made personal attacks or aspersions against me at AfD. Were you able to find any sources that count towards GNG? BilledMammal (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack, its fact in my opinion. These are Danish international footballers you're nominating. Why are they international footballers, if you can't figure that part out then you're not doing a WP:BEFORE, plain and simple. Govvy (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)t[reply]
  • Delete does not merit inclusion per GNG. There seems to be no sources that demonstrate this is a notable topic. Per SPORTSCRIT listings in database sources with low, and generic standards of inclusion do not indicate notability for Wikipedia. And Wikipedia is consistent across the project. We must show that topics have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Also Wikipedia is not a collection point for indiscriminate information. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps), if no-one finds enough SIGCOV to keep. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Struway2 if nothing else can found on him, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and GiantSnowman. The "keep" voters fail to cite any WP:SIGCOV that would support a policy-based argument to keep. Cbl62 (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Verifiability means that we only keep articles that can be based on sources. We do not keep articles based on vague claims that there should be sources out there. Wikipedia has no grandfather clause, it is not a reliable source, and we do not give precedence to editors who create articles. Articles are kept if we can find GNG meeting sources, which do not exist in this case, not based on vague assertions that such sources exist, or at one point existed, or would exist in a perfect world. We need sources to have an article, period, we do not have sources here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I also failed to find sources. If good sources are identified, please ping me. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is the same as Kaj Nielsen, fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT Kazanstyle (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2022 (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 Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps). Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaj Nielsen (footballer)[edit]

Kaj Nielsen (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article hasn't scratched the surface, bias nomination in my view and this is a perfectly valid stub for an international footballer who played top flight football in Denmark for over six years. A true WP:BEFORE hasn't been done, as this is about Offline sources. Govvy (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have any examples of WP:SIGCOV, I would be willing to reconsider my delete vote below. Cbl62 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps), if no-one finds enough SIGCOV to keep. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Struway2 if nothing else can found on him, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Giant Snowman. Cbl62 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of being notable. scope_creepTalk 10:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are no GNG meeting sources, and no one has argued that there are any. This is a true sign of systemic bias, when people nominate articles on Danish people with no good sources, people argue that we should keep them because of no good reasons, but when people argue equally badly sourced articles on Samoan, Tongan, Tuvaluan or Virgin Islander people the articles get deleted based on an actual evaluation of sources. Sources are key, sources that meet GNG, and they are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2022 (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 Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps). Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Nielsen (footballer)[edit]

Leo Nielsen (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article hasn't scratched the surface, bias nomination in my view and this is a perfectly valid stub for an international footballer who played top flight football in Denmark for over six years. A true WP:BEFORE hasn't been done, as this is about Offline sources. Govvy (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any examples of WP:SIGCOV, I would be willing to reconsider my delete vote below. Cbl62 (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Johnpacklambert is exactly right. WP:SPORTBASIC was amended earlier this year to say "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." No such SIGCOV has been presented here. Cbl62 (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2022 (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 Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps). Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poul Nielsen (footballer, born 1915)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Poul Nielsen (footballer, born 1915) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2022 (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 Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps). The agreement here is that the subject is not notable enough to justify a separate article. Without any rebuttal against the "redirect" alternative, the result culminated as such. ✗plicit 10:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Nielsen (Danish footballer)[edit]

Wilhelm Nielsen (Danish footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Player who won the Danish Championship three times in 1921–22, 1924–25 and 1931–32 with Kjøbenhavns Boldklub, highly doubt correct WP:BEFORE has been done. Govvy (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NFOOTY was deprecated because it was such a poor predictor of GNG; implying SIGCOV is likely based solely on his meeting former NFOOTY criteria is therefore not a valid keep reason. A search for "Wilhelm Nielsen" "boldklub" returned just 3 pages of results, all of them football databases/directories (including one book) or brief mentions in non-independent media. JoelleJay (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per @Govvy:. In addition, having been a Danish international and three-time Danish league winner 1920s-30s there are definitely off-line soucres about him. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Das osmnezz, re: there are definitely off-line soucres about him, please link to these sources that you found. JoelleJay (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps), if no-one finds enough SIGCOV to keep. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Struway2 if nothing else can found on him, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, JoelleJay and GiantSnowman. The "keep" vote speculates that there are off-line source, but no actual WP:SIGCOV has been presented to support a policy-based argument to keep. If SIGCOV later shows up, the article can be re-created, and the present AfD poses no threat of losing real value since the total narrative text of the current article is less than 15 words. Cbl62 (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of being notable. scope_creepTalk 10:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article fails GNG and fails verification. We do not keep articles because people hand wave and say "there are definitely off-line sources about him." This is a-because vague claims do not hold water and b-because not everyone who is mentioned in a source somewhere is notable. I can find name drops of my teachers from middle school in feel good local press stories about some project we did as a middle school team, that does not make those teachers notable. Likewise, just because there are match reports that name most or all of the competitors in a football game, and brief articles about football players being traded, and other name drops, does not mean that those things together mean we have to have an article on every football player ever. We need explicit references to what these online sources are so that they can be considered and evaluated. Until we have that, we need to go with what we actually do have, and what we have is not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2022 (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! 04:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Daigle[edit]

Steven Daigle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR; lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Mr. Daigle has achieve lots of reality tv, film, television, and media coverage. The information on this page is enough to stand alone an article. The sources as well sourced, I'm looking at his filmography, and IMDB. He's been in at least 6 or 7 different things film related. Other than reality television, he's an actor, and pornographer. I also see he's been nominated for awards. For that reason I vote keep. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2022 (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! 05:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Saros 162[edit]

Solar Saros 162 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too early：The most recent eclipse of the cycle will not be visible until 100 years later, so there is no need to create a page that points to the solar saros now. Ｑ₂₈ (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a copy of data from a single source with no other evidence of notability. All of the entries are after the year 2256. Praemonitus (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - We have a bunch of these articles with similar sourcing and structure which refer to past, present and future astronomical events (see {{Solar eclipses}}. How do we determine the cutoff for this information? I presume no one would advocate deleting Solar Saros 155 but it has information on eclipses up to the year 3190. Do we need to trim that information out? I don't think WP:TOOSOON applies here so what is the policy basis for deleting this reliably sourced information? ~Kvng (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming it's because none of these solar eclipses within this Saros cycle have occurred yet, but for Saros 155, events have already occurred, having started back in 1928. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's a reasonable story and I guess the information in Solar Saros 162 is of little practical use to currently living readers. But what's the reason for deleting it? It can't be sourcing as Praemonitus suggests unless they also would advocate for deleting Solar Saros 155. Is it WP:TOOSOON because the moon may unexpectedly dissapear in the next 100 years? If I was motivated to delete this, I would try to cite WP:NOTDATABASE but I think that would be a stretch and would also apply to Solar Saros 155. ~Kvng (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I believe there is a current RFC trying to determine the parameters of these articles and redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fairly encyclopedic and is in multiple language versions of Wikipedia. Other fairly reliable sources includes [55] [56] [57]. QiuLiming1 (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rationale for deleting or redirecting individual eclipse articles has been, so far, that they can be included in these list pages; it needlessly complicates things to start rummaging through the list pages themselves. As has been said, there is a large list of these cycles in the navbox, as they are all equal in the sense of being verifiably extant (whether they are ongoing, have ceased, or have not yet begun). Since it's possible to accurately predict eclipses thousands of years into the future, and the human race has successfully done so for hundreds (if not thousands) of years, it seems like it would be trivial to find adequate sourcing here. jp×g 01:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No credible policy-based rationale give for deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boricua ¡Ahora Es![edit]

Boricua ¡Ahora Es! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails the notability policy. None of its 9 cites given in the article provide any notability. In addition, 2 of those 9 cites (#2 & #8) are dead links. The first one (#2) was a link to an anonymous IP site, and the second one (#8) lead to a TV network's website, but provided no date or identifying article name to pursue further search, thus it now lands at today's headlines for that TV network's website. Of the remaining 7, four of them (#s4, 5, 6, &7) aren't articles exclusive about this organization but merely include it as one of about half a dozen other organizations that were performing a political activity; i.e., those articles aren't exclusively about this organization or, for that matter, they aren't even exclusively about the half dozen orgs that are mentioned in those 4 articles in passing. The four articles are, btw, almost mirror image of each other in content, and appear to be the same initial article by the same one author. This leaves 3 cites, 2 of which (#s1 & #9) are self-published sources, and the last one (#3) isn't a reliable source as it consistes of a YouTube video uploaded by a fan of the organization. An additional online search didn't produce any reliable sources for this organizations. Mercy11 (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 18 July 2022 (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. Arguments against deletion failed to address any of the concerns brought up in the discussion. ✗plicit 10:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Imran Shafqat[edit]

Syed Imran Shafqat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only available reliable, secondary, in-depth sources are about his arrest and imprisonment, leading to WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME issues. I did the best BEFORE I could do, but I admit my ability to find, access, and evaluate Pakistani sources is limited. If there's GNG-compliant sourcing out there about other aspects of Shafqat's life, I'll gladly withdraw this nomination. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The information given is authentic. No need to delete the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMRAN SHAFQAT SYED (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As he is notable journalist and all the source are from primary media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Ashraf333 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. Very limited coverage apart from his arrest (which likely falls under WP:NOTNEWS anyway), and most search results are for a doctor with the same name. Not too great for somebody whose notability (or lack thereof) only comes from the Internet... I found this [58], but the only parts related to the WP article's subject are based on an interview with him, so not independent. BilletsMauves (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2022 (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. Per strength of arguments, anything failing WP:V should not be merged. Any editor using reliable sources is, of course, welcome to add to an article to strengthen understanding of the topic. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oberndorf Aircaft Barrier[edit]

Oberndorf Aircaft Barrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A topic is presumed to be failed to be suitable for a stand-alone article per WP:GNG. JeBonSer (talk | sign) 02:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Two World War II cables intended to obstruct Allied airplanes do not merit an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to propose merge to Anti-aircraft warfare#General description as an alternative to deletion (WP:ATD-M). More specifically, this could be condensed into a single-sentence bullet point in the same list where barrage balloons are mentioned. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oberndorf am Neckar (identified below) is probably a better merge target, as it would allow for more extensive coverage. Ljleppan (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Oberndorf am Neckar and/or Anti-aircraft warfare#General description. While not necessarily warranting a separate article at this point, the topic is interesting and notable enough to be recorded. It is not merely about "two World War II cables" but also about 3 aircraft crashes directly caused by them. Bermicourt (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's similar to the use of barrage balloons, so would fit there. I don't know if this is the only example of cables used for AA purposes or if it's one of a type; I have a vague recollection of hearing about something similar in the past, but it may have been this example!
    JeffUK (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If a redirect is created it would be nice to correct the spelling of 'Aircaft' and de-capitalise at the same time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but no aircaft ever came close to Obendorf either. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several redirects have been proposed, is there one that is settled upon?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Oberndorf aircraft barrier, Delete the mis-spelt title, Redirect and Merge to Oberndorf am Neckar, and find a WP:RS for the claim. The website Whitecross Battlefield Tours has a useful description and photographs, but it's not the sort of site we'd usually consider reliable. The German Wiki article has as its sole source a local poster describing the history, again useful but not exactly an ideal ref either. Also mention it was called Oberndorf Fliegersperre. This really isn't the way to construct Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely unsourced, failing WP:V and therefore unsuitable for a merger. Sandstein 07:36, 26 July 2022 (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! 06:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samuela Vula[edit]

Samuela Vula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 18 July 2022 (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.

This page should stay. It lets people learn about Sprinterra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6A32:4F30:459C:AA6F:E665:BB65 (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 delete (G11) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. --MuZemike 14:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sprinterra[edit]

Sprinterra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article, probably not notable. Kaseng55 (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete under WP:G11 probably, since it was made by User:Sprinterra101. A WP:BEFORE search isn't pulling up any sources that would demonstrate notability. It's possible that there are sources in Russian or Ukrainian, but since the company is headquartered in New York I would expect to see some English language coverage. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Kaseng55 and BuySomeApples, the 'russian' language coverage was made by the Voice of America 's Russian language division. its in Russian because that is the language that most of Sprinterra developers and coders in Ukraine and beyond speak and understand. This page can actually help Sprinterra's Ukrainian team members to get noted and maybe get hired by the Western companies. Work helps these people to survive. Sprinterra101 (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi @Sprinterra101: If you can find and add significant Russian coverage to the page, that would help. Right now, the sources used for the page don't show that it meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. I think I can speak for a lot of editors when I say that I want Ukrainians to get all the help they can, but creating a Wikipedia page isn't a good way to get noticed by potential employers. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        thanks! you think this one is not enough? https://www.golosameriki.com/a/6524164.html Sprinterra101 (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is not enough @Sprinterra101: I recommend that you take the time to read up on Wikipedia's sourcing and notability guidelines. Also, I really meant what I said about Wikipedia not being a good way to showcase yourself to potential employers. Everything has to be cited to a reliable source, and you're very limited in what you can say. It's also not allowed to create a page for that purpose. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            I totally understand and trying my best here. Thank you, @BuySomeApples Sprinterra101 (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        the same news package about the company can be found on YT, but I cannot share the link here - copy paste this in YT
        Украинские программисты выходят на довоенный уровень экспорта своих разработок Sprinterra101 (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, Ukraine, and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:02, 18 July 2022 (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! 04:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Pupi[edit]

Henry Pupi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep given that the driving force behind this purge is a change in notability policy, articles should be tagged and given reasonable time for improvement rather than simply deleted. --IdiotSavant (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a valid reason to keep Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MERCY, people can always use user space if they want to work on the article without it getting deleted. This has been in mainspace for 7 years with no GNG evidence being provided, it's not as if people haven't had sufficient time to flesh out the article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sources in the article and that could be found from a search consist only of passing mentions and database listings, not enough to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2022 (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 FFAS Senior League. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaiala Tongan[edit]

Vaiala Tongan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Currently unreferenced as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suivai Ataga[edit]

Suivai Ataga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:46, 18 July 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_July_18&oldid=1102119594"