Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 09	June 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was 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!} 23:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heida Mobeck

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

Unable to find substantial coverage. Perhaps simply WP:TOOSOON Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, she seems notable by performing a simple Google search but the article only contains 3 references. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 15:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eeramana Rojave 2 (TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete or Keep Official Disney+ Hotstar Ott Website [3] and more coverage in Tamil language, show is still airing. There may be important updates in the future.--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like above, AfD, there is little coverage, and this article extensively relies on routine promotional coverage.
- Source 1 is promotional coverage which only describes the promotional video posted on YouTube
- Source 2 is routine tabloid promotional coverage on the first season ending, and just contains various frames of this as well as a sentence with one screenshot of the new season
- Source 3 is routine tabloid coverage that only summarises the promotional video posted on YouTube
- Source 4 is a timeline of Bigg Boss events, only connection is that ER2's cast participated in this
- Source 5 is a link to the promo on YouTube
- Source 6 is on Bigg Boss's ending, and does not mention ER2 in any way
This reply links to the show's page on Hotstar, which is not a source and none of this proves how ER2 is notable for Wikipedia. Karnataka (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete - there is somewhat significant coverage about the show, however most of it is just gossip i'm afraid - @P.Karthik.95 look up eeramana rojavey 2 in tamil, see what you can find but i only found one article that bears relevance. @Karnataka - Disney+ Hotstar is primary sourcing, that's only one source though so your point stands. Would consider changing my vote to Keep if you can find sufficient sourcing, i've tried but only found one source. Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspiringeditor1 my point is to find notability for the topic. The Hotstar page will not prove notability because every show produced by Hotstar will be there, and it is a primary source so will not fit the notability guideline anyways. I put it in tamil and switched to news section [4], the top results are news on the cast and routine updates on 'today episodes'. Karnataka (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is no consensus to delete this article (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merc Fenn Wolfmoor

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:WRITER. The article relies exclusively upon primary sources and sources that are connected to Wolfmoor (only sources independent of the subject of the article can be used to establish notability). All information in this article is sourced from Wolfmoor's Tweets, blog and 'About the Author'. The article is based entirely on statements made by Wolfmoor and Wolfmoor's publishers. I was unable to find any good independent sources, making meaningful improvement to this article impossible. Baronet13 (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Raladic (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of articles supporting GNG.

As the article mentions, the Author has changed their name in 2019 and most of their work from before then is attributed to their older name.

[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]

I believe the nomination may have missed in WP:BEFORE of the authors prior name under which most work is published, so the nomination may fall under WP:SNOWBALL. Raladic (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are significant coverage in a secondary source. The first one is an interview (which is a primary source and cannot be used to establish notability). The fourth is already cited in the article and is just a list (not coverage). The third and fifth are also just lists and are not coverage. The second only has a sentence about Wolfmoor, and the sixth has only a short paragraph. Nothing here proves notability. Baronet13 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merc Fenn Wolfmoor is a well-known and significant science fiction and fantasy author who has been a finalist for both the Otherwise Award (formerly known as the James Tiptree, Jr. Award) and the Nebula Award. Under the "any biography" criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people), a person is considered to meet notability guidelines if they have received a well-known and significant award or honor, or "been nominated for such an award several times." Being a finalist for these awards qualifies Wolfmoor. But in addition there are plenty of other sources proving notability including a large number of reviews of their work, such as a starred review in Publishers Weekly of their short story collection So You Want to Be a Robot, a PW review of Friends for Robot, plus other PW reviews of their short stories in anthologies such as A People’s Future of the United States, Wilde Stories 2016: The Year’s Best Gay Speculative Fiction, and The Best American Science Fiction and Fantasy 2018. Other reviews proving notability can be found in Kirkus Reviews (see links 1 2, and 3) and Booklist (accessible via Wikipedia Library). Add all of that with the NPR reviews/coverage and interviews shared above by Raladic plus having stories reprinted in multiple editions of The Best American Science Fiction and Fantasy and Wolfmoor meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Several' means more than two, so two nominations do not meet the criteria for WP:ANYBIO. All of these reviews are quite short, not in depth, and some of them barely mention Wolfmoor. If these are the best sources in existence, it proves Wolfmoor does not meet notability requirements. Baronet13 (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are standard reviews for Publishers Weekly and Kirkus and absolutely prove notability. In fact, reviews such as these are the gold standard for proving notability for author articles on Wikipedia. Wolfmoor has also been a multi-time nominee for the Locus Award, so there's the 3 award finalists spots you asked for. Plus there is also far more coverage of Wolfmoor and their work out there including in genre industry publications such as this spotlight interview in Lightspeed Magazine and reviews in Locus Magazine (see 1, 2, 3 but there are many more) and Tangent Online (see 1, 2 , 3 but again there are many more). The sum total of all this is Wolfmoor meets notability guidelines. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are primary sources and can't be used to establish notability. As for the others, most have only a single paragraph, many only a single sentence, referencing Wolfomoor's work. They are just general descriptions and impressions, not the sort of detailed and in-depth analysis that would qualify as significant coverage. These sources do not satisfy notability requirements. Baronet13 (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are can be used to determine the notability of creative professionals such as authors. Per WP:POET, notability can be established if a creative professional has "won significant critical attention," which these reviews establish. But on top of that Wolfmoor has been a finalist for three different major awards in their genre, meaning they also meet that notability criteria.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POET isn't relevant because Wolfmoor is not a poet. The issue isn't whether or not reviews can be used to determine notability, it's whether or not the particular sources you listed are 'significant coverage.' Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not clearly define 'significant coverage', describing it only as addressing 'the topic directly and in detail'. I don't think it's possible to cover a book (or anything else) in detail is a single paragraph or less, and as a result would not consider short reviews and brief overviews to be significant coverage. Baronet13 (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baronet13: As an FYI, WP:POET is merely a redirect pointing to the notability guidelines for creative professionals. If you click on it you'll see it applies to all types of creative professionals, including authors. As for your belief that it's not possible to cover a book in a single paragraph, that's merely your belief. I disagree, especially when the reviews are in Publishers Weekly and Kirkus.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the links provided by SouthernNights I'd say a Weak Keep but would strongly suggest that someone who is familiar with the author actually improve the article as it stands. Because for a random Wikipedia editor scrolling through the page, as it stands, looks very non-notable. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This author should easily pass WP:AUTHOR 3 or 1 based on their contributions to several periodicals and collections over many years, as well as the recognition they have received. For now, I've added one more source from NPR. —siro χ o 23:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing identified by SouthernNights. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thirumagal (TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Padrón

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources; fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Puerto Rico. JTtheOG (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Cole

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Danny Cole

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

The subject is non-notable. The text doesn't indicate any major gallery shows, there are no citations for the one minor show, and the majority of the citations are from publications that aren't notable enough to have Wikipedia pages themselves. Link from Rolling Stone is a photo caption of a party report, link from Converse doesn't resolve. The work referred to is not comprehensive enough to hit any of the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. Ctbeiser (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WP:TOOSOON. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Strong consensus subject meets WP:NACTOR, no need to prolong (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joey D'Auria

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

Fails WP:GNG. The references in the article do not show notability and there don't appear to be other references available online. --Ferien (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:NACTOR. 17 years as the lead of The Bozo Show and hundreds of voice roles in television and film. Novemberjazz 05:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per the subject-specific WP:NACTOR criteria that overrides GNG. His contributions in the voice acting realm can rightly be described as "prolific" due to the vast amount of media he performed in. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure this overrides GNG? It is under #Additional criteria and that says conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. I thought that GNG overrides these specific subject-specific notability guidelines. --Ferien (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is infact the other way around, subject specific guidelines override GNG. While they are also not definitive in stating something is notable, there has to be a really solid reason why it would be an exception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really correct either. Everyone has their opinions, but both are merely different indicators of what may or may be notable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For sure an F-list voice actor, and the "meat" of the article will probably always be something of a stub due to the weak references, but the notability inclusion criteria for actors is pretty low. SnowFire (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To think someone could host a television show for 17 years and not be notable ~~is...exceedingly bad judgement~~ is exceedingly unlikely. Please think hard about what exactly our notability requirements are aiming to do. This...isn't it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73, I don't think saying I have exceedingly bad judgement was necessary. I probably could have checked a little harder, I'm aware of that now, but I'm not an active editor at AfD, and considering we've now got to a level where my judgement is being unnecessarily attacked here, that is completely irrelevant to the article at hand, that's probably for good reason. It was snowing heavily before you turned up – I already got the message, thanks. --Ferien (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my comment was over the top, I just find it frustrating when there's so many bad articles out there, and people target articles with a relatively easy-to-envision path to notability instead. Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's understandable and I will certainly pay more attention in any future AfD nominations I make. --Ferien (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's not WP:BITE users who try to bring things to AfD. I'd rather have some articles determined to be notable and kept than non-notable articles not be brought here at all out of fear of being called an editor with bad judgement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is a notable person. Kinkordada (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims above. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly fulfills WP:NACTOR. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Singh

AfDs for this article:

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

I just declined the G4 as there's a 2023 role that wasn't present in prior versions, but I don't think it's enough to get her over the N:ACTOR role. Bringing it here for discussion and if it closes the same way, suggest protection to avoid a return trip without AfC. Star Mississippi 20:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Star Mississippi 20:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No significant update since the last AfD from a year back. Delete and salt per nom, and my vote from the previous AfD. Once protected, the request for unprotection would have to establish notability. Jay 💬 18:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N. DreamRimmer (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis can the article be put under Wikipedia:Notability Tarun Kancherla Chowdary (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does the award listed here[11] (an Editorial Choise award for Best Actress at the Indian Telly Awards) count toward notability at all? That might put here over the top of notability if it is considered major. Otherwise I'd consider the sources no better than borderline. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link you provided does not mention her award, but her article does mention it as Most Promising Actress, and it was already part of the article during this AfD nomination. Indian Telly Awards does not mention such a category, and the official website of the awards does not work. It may be a category introduced this year, or it may be the new name of an existing category. I could not find their 2022 awards, and there is no mention of such a category in their 2021 or 2019 awards. I would not consider it significant enough for WP:ANYBIO. Jay 💬 05:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been introduced this year , they even posted this on their official youtube channel as well !! I had only one article to show that she won an award under that category Tarun Kancherla Chowdary (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But doesn't the article meet the requirements of WP:SINGLEEVENT ?? Tarun Kancherla Chowdary (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC) — Tarun Kancherla Chowdary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

In the event this is kept or draftified, flagging existence of Draft:Ayesha Singh. Star Mississippi 16:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual Art Machine

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

Non-notable art enterprise. Gsearch goes directly to the wiki entry. Then search finds [12], which I'm unsure if it's a RS. Then this [13] in a different city. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The first citation (ArtDaily) is a press release, the second citation newyorkalmanack seems to be about an unrelated project of the same name. In a BEFORE I was able to find primary sources, such as an interview and the like, but nothing so far that is independent and in-depth. Will continue to look before !voting. Netherzone (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. Netherzone (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An evident case of WP:IBA, connecting with the article of Lee Wells which has been accused of WP:AUTOBIO. Even if some sources are available, I don't think anything will eventually pass WP:GNG. Chiserc (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. (Incidentally, this article might well have been deleted 16 years ago. It was created by an editor with an unambiguous conflict of interest, and in its early versions it was absolutely blatant spam. It was nominated for speedy deletion by Irishguy shortly after its creation, but the speedy deletion tag was removed by Nihonjoe with the edit summary "notability is claimed, feel free to AfD if you wish", which made little sense, because the reason given for speedy deletion was to do with being promotional, not to do with notability.) JBW (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Being 16 years ago, I don't remember that. However, as it currently stands, the article doesn't meet notability requirements. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP, no inherent notability per WP:ORGSIG. WP:NOTADVERTISING. Netherzone (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with above, fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Delete for all the many reasons given by other editors above. This is an easy call. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmina Cunmulaj

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

Non notable model, Other than this (which is already in the article) I've not found any evidence of any notability, Fails WP:NMODEL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No notability or any importance. ——Notorious4life (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael C. Mentel

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

As a mid-level judge and a former city council member, I do not believe this person meets the criteria set out under GNG or Wikipedia:Politician. Local politicians and judges are neither inherently notable or inherently not notable. There is nothing in coverage found on Google or in newspaper searches that would put Judge Mentel into "notability". Biographical information found is from campaign websites (primary sources) or run of the mill coverage of a countywide campaign. Mpen320 (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete: These guidelines may be helpful, specifically Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability. In particular, state courts of appeals judges who serve for a comparatively long time, who preside over important cases, or whose opinions are often cited by higher courts in the state, by federal courts, or by state courts in other states, are highly likely to be notable. It may be WP:TOOSOON since they've only been in office since 2020, but they may be notable at a later date. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I should have addressed those guidelines in my official "declaration." I usually check against Wikipedia:Academic (did they teach?) and use Bearian's notability standards for attorneys as a jumping off point to see if GNG can be established.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete badly sourced BLP who held a non-notable political position. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has not served at any level that would confer "inherent" notability under our inclusion standards for either politicians or judges, but the article is not reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to make him a special case of greater notability than the norm for those offices. Bearcat (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NECOBELAC Project

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

The whole article is written like a project proposal overview, a piece for advertising purposes WP:NOTPROMO. Fails considerably on WP:GNG, only references of WP:PRIMARY, no coverage from reliable sources. Chiserc (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Italy, Spain, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, and Ecuador. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Portugal, United Kingdom, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Artem.G (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all sources are primary sources, don’t meet the notability criteria FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ERTICO

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

The whole article is full of buzzwords, nothing to push, probably, beyond some basic WP:GNG. While the organization has developed partnerships with other European organizations and has sponsored some international events, there is a lack of WP:ORGCRITE. Most available sources are not independent and not with much depth of coverage. Chiserc (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Belgium. Chiserc (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly per nom and WP:PRIMARY, as there appears to be a lack of sources proving this subject's notability. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 16:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Wells

AfDs for this article:

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

The article includes very few information and nothing to justify WP:ARTIST. Having done a WP:BEFORE, I couldn't find anything that had significant coverage. Chiserc (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chiserc (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero hits for an artist with this name, anyone and everyone else pops up. COI and the SPA are also red flags. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The original article, an AUTOBIO was deleted, then recreated by a single purpose account WP:SPA who only worked on articles about Lee Wells and his projects; it is a COI entry likely created by Well's collaborator based on the user name Cbororkowski (see Perpetual Art Machine for more context (a currently unsourced article). A BEFORE search reveals only primary sources and an interview, nothing in the way of in-depth, independent coverage required for GNG; nothing found that might meet NARTIST. Will keep searching before !voting. Netherzone (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated the Perpetual Art Machine for deletion, it's likely not notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After searching via Google and the Wikipedia library resources, all I could find on this artist was a single interview and a few mentions that were basically name checks. Therefore does not meet WP:GNG. I also searched to see if there were museum collections or other sources which would meet notable artist criteria, but also fails WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not find any RS for biographical information presented. The one source used is just a passing mention. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warm (The Lettermen album)

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

Non-notable album Jax 0677 (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Album by a famous band and important influence (listen to the Beach Boys). Such articles are commonly kept, or if not, should be. Explain how deleting the article would improve the experience of readers searching on this term. Herostratus (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Per WP:V, "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but that applies to material we adding to the article. When discussing the content or fate of articles among ourselves, we have a lot more leeway to offer opinions and claims without having to necessarily provide sources. For instance, we should absolutely not put in their article that they influenced the Beach Boys (until we have a good source saying that), but it's very likely true IMO, and that matters when deciding how important they are. Herostratus (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major and historical band, hope that no other Letterman albums have been blanked or deleted on the basis similar to this nom. We don't expect albums of this vintage to have the same amount of current sources as 2023 releasses. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I think their compilation album was redirected. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Jax 0677 I assume you're using this as an argument to delete this album. Not a strong argument. If in doubt, consider restoring it and bring it to AfD and see what happens. ~Kvng (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequate coverage in music trade magazines. A bit more work and referencing required and it should easily meet the requirements. Karl Twist (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Keller Services for the Blind

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

Rejected PROD. I can't find any sources on Google; granted, it might be possible that if you live closer to the organization, sources would be easier to find. A couple of sources have been added, but they are, at best, of questionable independence. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 15:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and New York. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 15:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to keep. I appreciate that sourcing is a bit wobbly, but Google searching finds quite a lot of situations that indicate that reliable sources regard this institution as meaningful. For example, the New York Times chose to interview Rosemary Romano at great length about her role leading the organisation.[14] We may not regard interviews as reliable in the sense that interviewees are biased, but an interview by NYT still demonstrates notability. Similarly, the White House reckons that Paul Boskind's work for this organisation makes him worthy of being one of president Biden's advisors on disability.[15] Yes, everything I'm finding is an interview or a passing mention, but there's a lot of stuff out there suggesting that the word in general regards Helen Keller Services as a major organisation. The Japanese prime minister's spouse also thought it worth a visit![16] Elemimele (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be more than enough mentions of the institution [17] where they've contributed or done clinical research trials. It seems notable, but I do admit the sourcing is minimal. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that this article needs improvement for sources, but it does look notable. I poked around on jstor, and it looks like the organization is has enough credibility with other organizations to be the center of a deaf employment campaign for over a decade.^[1] ^[2] Mason (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Back Matter. (1999). American Annals of the Deaf, 144(3). [1]
^ Front Matter. (1988). American Annals of the Deaf, 133(2). [2]

Keep per Elemimele, Oaktree b, and Mason. Appears to pass WP:BASIC. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Per WP:HEY, AfD withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Sejong City

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

I'm not seeing why we need an exhaustive list of schools for this city. The topic seems to be a violation of WP:NOTDIR Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Also this policy discourages simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopaedic merit. List also fails WP:LISTN due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV about this group of schools as a group. The local government website for Sejong is not an acceptable source as it's clearly not independent of the subject. This article only seems to have two notable schools (to be honest, even those two schools might be non-notable) so the list is not a useful index. Similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Asunción, Paraguay and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in Riobamba among many others. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools explains why we have such exhaustive lists: "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to [...] the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body)." The local website of Sejong is an acceptable source to prove the school exists, and South Korean municipal websites document very well which schools exist in the country. Now does this mean the school has notability? No. The solution would be to redirect the school name to Sejong City. However this then requires the article "Sejong City" to carry the name of the school (so the redirect can exist). However if there are a large number of schools, a daughter article "List of schools in Sejong City" would be created to retain the information.
Whether to keep this list or not depends on how many schools Sejong City has. Can the city article comfortably keep the list of schools, or does it need a separate article? I've listed schools for Japanese municipalities and found ways to compress the lists using "div col", so I think I might be able to compress the lists of schools in the article Sejong City
WhisperToMe (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the logic of those redirects being created as an alternative to an article although I do note that a lot of recent similar AfDs to this one have concluded in 'delete' which means that the consensus might be changing. My other concern is that I would still say that NOTDIR applies to a list of non-notable schools and I'm struggling to see why we find a directory list of schools acceptable, whether that be as part of the city article or as its own article, yet find directory lists of just about everything else to be unacceptable. I mean it wasn't that long ago that secondary schools were presumed to be notable enough for a stand-alone article without exception so maybe this needs looking at from scratch as it seems contradictory. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One aspect is that many users wanted Wikipedia to function as a gazeteer of some sort noting major geographic sites, of which schools (especially government-operated schools) are one of them. As all incorporated municipalities are to have articles, there is an expectation of knowing about their respectively major functional sites like libraries, post offices, fire stations, and schools (especially government-run schools). Now, I notice in one of the AFDs the users wanted the schools being "discussed as a group or set in multiple, reliable secondary sources". I can check with South Korean editors if there are sources about the development of schools in Sejong City (which is a planned city set to be the administrative heart of South Korea). WhisperToMe (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to see what South Korean editors think as I'm not from South Korea so wouldn't have any first-hand experience of this topic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great news! User:*Youngjin found some stuff we can use: ko:사용자토론:*Youngjin WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since there is material which does show that the schools are altogether discussed as a group/set in multiple, reliable secondary sources WhisperToMe (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW keep. It's incredibly unlikely this will be deleted, as the nominator themself has even admitted. Issues with the article can be settled on its talk page. (non-admin closure)‎ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Nauta

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

This probably needs a broader discussion.

This may warrant an article in the future, but as of now, we have an article on a valet who is only known to the public because he was charged a few days ago. He hasn't and may not be convicted. We're getting into "do no harm" territory as far as BLP, which is fairly sacred. If it helps, I can throw in some other letters like WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME.

If we have an infobox that says "Known for: being associated with someone" we're on shaky ground. GMG ^talk 12:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Politics, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. As of today, Nauta is the co-defendant of the first former president of the United States to be charged with a federal crime. That's a major role in a major event in the history of the United States. His role in this event is well documented.

Perhaps in the near future he will be a witness for the prosecution instead of a co-defendant, but that won't lessen his significance at all.

I can't see any way in which he will not have a major, well-documented role in a major event in the history of the United States. Pha telegrapher (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I agree: Keep. (An analogous article: Rose Mary Woods.) Left Central (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I forgot to include my vote: Keep. (Though it's probably pretty obvious.) Pha telegrapher (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is already a historical significant case, and the fact that Nauta (at this point) uniquely makes this case a conspiracy of named and charged individuals makes his otherwise unremarkable bio important imho. JGDove99 (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is critical to keep Waltine "Walt" Nauta's entry on Wikipedia. Trump's case is historical. Nauta is a party to the former president's indictment, having played an instrumental role in endangering America's national security aside from Mr. Trump himself and others in the know who have yet to be revealed. The fact that he was a member of our armed forces makes it all the worse and even more relevant at the same time. Please, keep Nauta's entry on Wikipedia and update the article as needed to reflect the latest developments as the case unfolds. Thank you. 2A00:23C8:1F87:5001:B59A:B814:30D2:6E5A (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This meets the “significant coverage in reliable sources” test (and quite easily, too). Subject has been covered over a series of months (including pre-indictment), with several sources going into detail on his biography/career. Many others in similar roles have articles: List of personal aides to the president of the United States lists the bluelinks. Neutrality^talk 14:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with

pha telegrapher. Conor13 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe subject received front-page coverage on the Washington Post of June 19, 2023. Among color photos, the fifth sentence there reads: "And, as a result, Nauta will now share a page in history books ... with the nation's 45th president". If mere "association" isn't valid reason for inclusion, why leave the entry for Morton Sobell? (Extreme analogy. Or is it?) Johannes der Taucher (talk)
Keep You cited WP:BLP1E, which says we should not have an article when each of three conditions is met:
- 1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Clearly, this is met.
- 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. This is also met.
- 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. This one is not met. The event is significant, we have numerous articles on this (FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, Smith special counsel investigation, Federal prosecution of Donald Trump, FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents etc.) and his role in it was substantial and well documented.
You say you can "throw in some other letters". Let's also look at WP:CRIMINAL: the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies
- 1. The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities;[10] or I guess the victim of this crime is the U.S. as a whole, so this doesn't fit.
- 2. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Yeah Donald Trump is alleged to have stored classified secrets in a bathroom and a ballroom stage, and Nauta is alleged to have helped move the boxes and apparently lied to the FBI in the process. The motivation for the crime and the execution of the crime are unusual, and this has become a well-documented historical event that will get more documentation as we get to a trial. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person...Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.
    I'm not sure I expect this will actually be deleted, because everything that touches Trump gets seven articles and four sidebar templates. But we're not supposed to be making articles based on what sources we feel will exist in the future, and we're supposed to be exercising the utmost caution with living people, especially living people who are only known for being connected with a crime for which they have not been convicted. GMG^talk 16:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There will be more coverage in the future, but there's plenty of coverage on his role in this right now. And making sure we presume innocence until proven guilty is an issue to maintain within the article, not with deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - You pretty seamlessly defined CRYSTAL and NOTNEWS. GMG ^talk 22:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's clearly notable now after being co-charged with Trump for being in violation of the Espionage Act. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As discussed on the article's talk page and should have been read WP:BEFORE starting this AFD, This person clearly and completely fails qualification #3 of WP:BLP1E. All 3 must be met for WP:BLP1E to apply.

Nothing in the article goes against WP:SUSPECT either. This is about as high-profile of an indictment as could be. No privacy is being violated in the article. It's well sourced and just lays out his biography which has been widely reported over a period of months and it states what is in the highly public indictment. The Helderman article was published 3 months ago.

FWIW, WP:CRIMINAL does not apply as this person has not been convicted. He is presumed innocent. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was going to vote delete for WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIMINAL, but @Muboshgu's analysis convinced me to vote keep. I'm still a little worried it's WP:TOOSOON. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No matter the outcome of the trial, this man's name and the association with this trial will make him part of history, like John Dean and John Ehrlichman were to the Watergate Scandal. Msjayhawk (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage and, as per above, doesn't meet point three on WP:BLP1E. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 17:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Please Keep the article on Nauta. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Starting now and increasingly as the trial progresses and decades into the future, people will still want to know who this person was and how and why he was involved with our first presidential criminal indictment. His lack of notoriety but role potentially facilitating the president to commit crimes is precisely why we need a curated article on him. He is now a public figure, like it or not. He is now and will always be noteworthy even if either/both are found not guilty or plead out in the future because Trump and his name will be tied together and the first thing I did reading the indictment today was look up the article on Wikipedia and thank goodness you hadn't deleted it yet. People charged with espionage charges potentially putting the entire country at risk are definitely noteworthy now and historically - like Snowden, for example. 209.37.78.233 (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the future: clearly there's a strong consensus for keep so far, but when the dust has settled, it might be necessary to reconsider this article in a future AfD. If everything we have to say about this man is directly tied up in FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents then maybe it'd be better to say it there, and replace this article with a redirect? If all that this article can add are his childhood school and his being a navy cook, basically irrelevant trivia, it's hardly justified. Elemimele (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or this person might end up like John Dean was to the Watergate scandal. We don't know at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article about the charges themselves, as it appears on the main page today [18] Thinking this person is tied up in the mess, but not the primary suspect, based on what I've read anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Directly named in a historic criminal indictment. Also referred to directly in at least two other prominent Wikipedia articles, and it makes no sense to have a link to his name as a red (empty) link. Moncrief (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Far and away a lot of coverage regarding Nauta, combined with coverage predating the indictment. SWinxy (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toddst1 re John Dean and existence of Rose Mary Woods and Charles Colson; no prejudice to merger into larger article if and when person's roles in these cases is clear. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article deletion qualification fails point three of WP:BLP1E. Captain Infinity (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was watching something about Presidents Trump's federal charges and it mention Walt Nauta, I didn't have a clue who he was, so as usual when I need to know something I go to Wikipedia. If the article didn't exist, I wouldn't be able to look it up and find out who he is. Yakacm (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is now a public figure, with extensive coverage in WP:RS. As has been pointed out above, WP:BLP1E does not apply here because the third condition of the rule does not apply. — The Anome (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI just read the indictment and was searching for the historic co-defendant's backstory. I would suggest expanding it more as being a on the indictment with Trump probably isn't his entire history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6757:F810:F169:4999:B7AB:81E4 (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Shah Faiz Public School

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

Unreferenced for 12 years. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ leaning keep. Daniel (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palau–Serbia relations

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

This is another bilateral relations article that doesn't actually describe much of that - there is no significant coverage, only some statements by politicians, and that does not warrant a standalone article. I stumbled upon this just like the Equatorial Guinea Kosovo relations article, this sounds equivalently silly. --Joy (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Kosovo, Serbia, and Oceania. Joy (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may seem silly at first to you but it seems to me the article is referencing issues further from the mere fact that some nominal formal relations exist. The issues already addressed include bilateral state visit by Palau president to Serbia, potentially controversial issue of de-recognition of Kosovo as well as climate change effects on international relations.--MirkoS18 (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (part 2): After expanding the article with further 18 references, many of which with in depth coverage I believe that comparison with Equatorial Guinea–Kosovo relations is inadequate one and probably even a false balanced approach. It would in fact be much more similar to the Georgia–Kiribati relations (maybe even Abkhazia–Vanuatu relations or Abkhazia–Tuvalu relations) case showing how in a globalized world some important links and relations (based on specific interest) between far away peripheral and semi-peripheral countries may develop.--MirkoS18 (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but saying that the countries "collaborate" through an embassy in Tokio is just adding to the meaninglessness of this article. A blurb on the ministry of foreign affairs website does not constitute significant coverage of this "collaboration", most obviously because it's not a secondary source nor is it independent from the article subject. Also please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In a globalized world, people write a lot of misguided encyclopedia articles and essentially waste volunteer time and effort. --Joy (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand that you may have a strong opinion that this is some silly and needless topic but once you stop laughing maybe take a look at other references in this article as well (the one you selected in no random way is obviously not independent but is neither stating anything controversial or analytical). Some of them are in depth independent sources which should be evaluated without strong preconceptions. That is all I expect and I believe people who get involved will be willing to do exactly that. As for waste of time, nominating notable topics for deletion can also be interpreted as a waste of time and this topic looks notable to me. But let the community decide. Cheers!--MirkoS18 (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are in depth? Most of the reference section seems to be news coverage, at least I didn't notice much else. I combed through and saw nspm.rs which sounded like it could be an in-depth journal, but the article linked is from their 'chronicle' section and it seems to basically repeat a short press release. There's a handful of sources that are referenced more than once, an ABC article that quotes two academics from Macquarie University to explain, and an RTS article that seems to explicitly just carry a Tanjug wire article. This isn't about preconceptions, it's about the spirit and letter of WP:V. If the preponderance of coverage is about practically nothing, there's practically no reason to have an encyclopedia article about it. --Joy (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's about a small Pacific island nation with 4-5 embassies in total around the world which since 2018 managed to have two official heads of states meetings (Belgrade and New York), multiple high officials meetings (Belgrade, New York, Palau), clearly defined areas of interest in cooperation (climate, Kosovo), certain interest by USA and Russia in this relations, and bilateral agreements already signed or announced. There is also some precedence with certain role Yugoslavia played in UN's decolonisation efforts. All in all, this may be the best covered article on Palau's bilateral relations and I do believe that despite how small that state is their bilateral relations may be notable. Also, each of this requires significantly larger efforts by Palauan diplomacy to achieve than it would for any major state so even some simple meeting is hardly business as usual. Everything listed is properly referenced in multiple independent media sources (some of them with very sensationalist titles such as No smaller country no bigger friends) from Serbia and other countries. There is obvious media interest in this specific relations due to its linkage to Kosovo issue. It may seem to you equal to nonexistent relations between Kosovo and Equatorial Guinea but in reality it is not. It is also very much different than some hypothetical Serbia–Tonga relations since in this case both sides showed clear commitment to their cooperation (I shall not say collaboration I guess).--MirkoS18 (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the commendable effort to expand the article, there just isn't WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. Yes the article cites some sources that mention state visits and the like, but there's nothing that actually covers the topic of Palau–Serbia relations in any sort of depth. Yilloslime (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are multiple independent sources which I quoted in the article doing exactly what. Some of them addressing explicitly the beginning of bilateral relations for example. Also, sources dealing with bilateral meetings between the two countries are certainly a part of the topic. I would recommend everyone else to take a look at the reference list before assuming that the statement above is correct.--MirkoS18 (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (part 2): also, since there is concern over the article currently under discussion should we probably also nominate most of the other articles in the Template:Foreign relations of Palau to check their inclusion? I think it would be shame to delete them all but at least it would tell us something about our policies if that would be the result. Personally, I would not like to do it myself at this time to avoid any disruption of the current procedure yet I am of course very much interested in equal treatment of topics on which I worked/am interested in to any other topic in this category.--MirkoS18 (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:HEY now, in my opinion. I think it's reasonable that articles on bilateral relations consist mostly of news coverage because they are supposed to cover various events i.e. relations between the two countries. Despite establishing relations four and a quarter years ago, news coverage seems WP:SUSTAINED enough, comes from several notable newspapers independent of the subject, nearly all are entirely dedicated to Serbia and Palau (i.e. WP:SIGCOV). 5~6 of 28 references come from obvious primary sources (Ministry / National Assembly / The Office of the President / Socialist Party / UNESCO?) and I think that's not enough to discredit the entire article. Which sources aren't reliable among the rest? Palau seems to punch above its weight for what it is, and topics from underrepresented regions should be given more consideration before jumping to 'delete' voting. –Vipz (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not beat around the bush here - the topic area of "Serbia vs. Kosovo" is hardly an underrepresented one. Does it warrant a 'bilateral relations' article for each of the offshoots? --Joy (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to beat around bushes, the importance of Kosovo in the initial development of those relations is explicitly stated (at least on Serbian side it was a primary motivation, doesn't seem like that on Palau's side). Saying that their relations are ONLY about Kosovo issue is original research if there is no reliable source stating it without other reliable sources challenging it.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the thing - an encyclopedia needs to describe the real world. What's happening in the real world is a bunch of politicians occasionally talking. If our standard for reality is that, well, we might as well just give up on WP:AT and make a fresh article for each new press release :) This is not supposed to be WikiNews. --Joy (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, maybe, but in this case we should split this article into multiple articles on 2-3 meetings, different policy areas, Yugoslavia in UN's body, shared initiative at UNESCO... but you are right, it may be too much. What is bringing it all together that it is about relations between Palau and Serbia in its different aspects and with different motivation.--MirkoS18 (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per no significant coverage and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In my opinion, this is a textbook Wikipedia:Overcategorization. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add, I believe that the coverage is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and WP:ROUTINE since it is essentially inherited by country X being in the United Nations. Though I am hinging a little bit to change my vote since the updated sources do satisfy the basic notability guideline. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In small countries of the Global South many initiatives which may be routine for major powers are in fact very important. For example, newly independent states without hard power, use summitry and ceremonies as an important tool. This fact is widely recognised in relevant literature (I can attach some references if needed but everyone may just Google it). They may be in the same category but will nevertheless be events of different magnitude for parties involved (e.g. person in Iceland speaking Icelandic and person in Paraguay speaking Icelandic, both in the same category of Icelandic speakers but the second one may be more notable). State visit from Hungary to Serbia is therefore very unexceptional, but state visit from Palau is certainly not.--MirkoS18 (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep based solely on WP:GNG. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is clear that there is RS here on Palu-Serbia, such as here, but it seems like a 1-event (or topic) category. Why don't we integrate these bilateral single-topic relations (which go back and forward over time, so they are strung out and are less like events), into a single article on Pacific Islands-Serbia relations (or other sensible groupings)? I have sympathy that disparate articles with small countries over the same topic will be too hard to manage/keep updated. Better to aggregate imho, or as time goes by, this article will fall into disrepair. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal certainly does sound like an interesting idea. It just honestly haven't crossed my mind so far. Is it common to do it in this way and how appropriate it may be?--MirkoS18 (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a good idea to "aggregate" into more substantive topic areas if there is more "aggregate" RS on the topic; makes for a more stable article long-term (i.e. borderline cases have a habit of returning again to AfD). Aszx5000 (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a lot of work has clearly gone into the article, but I think it's still fundamentally WP:SYNTH: to stand as an article in its own right, it shouldn't be the only work in print or publication with its topic area. There are lots of sources cited for individual aspects of the relationship between Palau and Serbia, but unless multiple reliable secondary sources have written on that relationship as a whole, I don't think we can have an article on it. With that said, the proposal for an aggregated article may be able to clear that hurdle, if the sources exist. Another option might be for a list article? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: sources should provide non-incidental coverage of the topic but the topic does not have to be the primary subject of the source. That being said, multiple quoted sources address the relationship in general, some even as a primary topic stated in the title (The beginning of relations between Palau and Serbia for example). Aspects of bilateral relations are certainly part of the topic and better suited for this than for any other article. Of course, the idea to consider other alternatives to deletion is interesting since this article certainly contains important encyclopedic information of interest for some readers.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG is met, and the assertion that the article is only about Palau ceasing to recognize Kosovo is incorrect. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HEY applies and WP:GNG is met. SportingFlyer T·C 11:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR it is technically true that the article no longer talk only about the diplomatic exchanges from 2018 and 2019 about Kosovo, it now has a paragraph about an event from 2022 at UNESCO, right? It seems to describe something happening with eight other countries. I thought these were about bilateral relations, not multilateral relations? What is the significant coverage of Serbia-Palau relations in https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381043? It's a 5 page PDF that mentions the word Serbia one time in the summary. And how is this source independent of the subject, if these are member countries of the same organization? --Joy (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I may add to this technical information that it also deals with Our Ocean Conference (funding and subsequent participation), multiple meetings which included public diplomacy, reactions by other stakeholders and historical Yugoslav involvement (where there are most probably multiple primary and maybe some secondary sources still not digitalized or easily available). But sure, one of the sources in UNESCO's document jointly drafted and proposed as a common position by 10 countries two of which are Serbia and Palau- I don't see how it is not related to their bilateral relations, after all we often explicitly say something like "both countries are members of NATO, EU etc". It seems to me that there is nothing very controversial in the way this particular source was used, just as a source of some non-interpretative fact (for example, it may be very different to use some institution's website to A) reference their address or B) state that they are leaders in the field--- and here, the fact that it is a common position of 10 countries at UNESCO may even provide additional RS quality). If I am wrong the source maybe should be censored. But more importantly, my understanding is that some relevant number of sources must be RS (and other sources were in fact indicated by other users, not this one which you selected here) and that the fact that one or X number of other sources are maybe not up to that standard does not undermine those that are RS. Probably very often our sources are of different quality and we can't always ensure that all of them are A+ but as long as they are reliable and decent sources we may be in a position to work with them.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The main issue does the volume and quality of these mentions strongly support the topic as an article, or is it just an assortment of mentions. If an average English reader reads the article, are they going to conclude "ah, yes, these two nations engage in relations that I now understand", or are they going to conclude "wait, what? all that these two nations have done together is this, and I spent all this time clicking through references that were essentially clickbait?" --Joy (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point and my impression is that they will certainly have something to learn about this notable relation (even if they may be more about big ambitions which may not all materialise and motivated by some specific circumstances). On the other hand my strong impression is that some average English reader will in fact probably have some strong pre-assumptions that there are probably no any notable relations between Palau and Serbia so if they are interested in foreign relations of each one of them may learn something counterintuitive and very useful they potentially didn't know before. I think you had some similar pre-assumptions when initially you stated that Palau Serbia relations are equally silly to article on non-existent relations between Kosovo and Equatorial Guinea (now deleted) that actually simply stated that there are no relations. Now you assume that it is all just about Kosovo (that is probably why you included this discussion into Kosovo deletion discussions section as well although I don't necessarily think it is totally related) but references clearly show that it is not despite strong initial importance of this case. I think freeing ourselves from such pre-assumptions may help us evaluate this case in a better way. Just imagine you have to evaluate article with similar engagements and references between let's say Latvia–Lithuania relations or Moldova–Slovenia relations where pre-assumption would probably be opposite.--MirkoS18 (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The individual sources here are enough to indicate probably notability, but I'd want to see secondary sources about Palau Serbia relations in general before confidently declaring notability. Right now it's mostly "as it's happening" sources rather than general coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 09:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hélder Reis

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOLYMPICS, I have added what I found with a BEFORE which was that he lost in round one Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Portugal. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can find significant prose coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. Database entries are insufficient to establish notability per WP:NATHLETE. Cullen328 (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Full name is Hélder Sancho da Costa Reis. This, and the Portuguese word for fencer, esgrimista, might help identify sources about the subject and not the (more notable/recent) Hélder Reis, a television presenter. What I have found is a Portuguese TV report about the fencer winning the national final in 1973. It seems he was inducted into a fencing Hall of Fame or similar in 2022 Portuguese fencing website report. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on Kingsif's findings above…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We can WP:V him but he has no significant coverage apart from maybe that film. We can always re-create if that's incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 11:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Seems marginal, but most participants in the discussion believe the sources are sufficiently independent and reliable to support notability. RL0919 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One Dreamer (video game)

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

I am not seeing the sources required for the title to pass WP:GNG. Kotaku is the only publication that mentioned it in a detailed manner, while Adventure Gamers is just an announcement posting. Well Played is not mentioned in WP:VG/S, others are unreliable. Per GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." An article with a single instance of SIGCOV is insufficient. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the article creator, no resistance to deletion for GNG. I've taken a second look for sources and sadly this does seem to fall short of other sources of major coverage. I dont think Well Played is a particularly strong source, but would be interested what the convention is for assessing notability of coverage by websites not covered under WP:VG/S for future reference.

ly the Vrxces (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well basically if the notability hinges on an unclear source, you can post the source on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources and then ask for feedback on whether it is reliable prior to making the article.

In this case I still don't think it would be notable even if Well Played is reliable. However, given that the site describes itself as "a collective of gamers" rather than a true publication, I have serious doubts that it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't pass the GNG. CastJared (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I was able to find some other sources: [19] [20] [21] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indiegamesplus is not listed as reliable, Source #2 is an interview - primary source, and Source #3 is Kotaku, making both SIGCOV from the same place. I doubt people here would find Indiesgamesplus reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indiegamesplus is Indiegames, it's just a site rename after the website no longer had UBM. As for the interview, this is an example of an interview as a secondary source, posted on a reliable website by an independent author. Finally, Kotaku Australia is its own separate staff, so being the same website doesn't really matter, since I don't imagine a coordinated campaign occurred to get both branches to talk about it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question is: is the independent IndieGamesPlus still reliable after splitting from its owner? I don't think that's just an open and shut case for its reliability. I also don't think it's provable that Kotaku AU's writer was not inspired in any way from seeing the earlier Kotaku review when writing the list. They could very well have went over games Kotaku previously reviewed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The staff of IG and IGP are the same, and multiple discussions occurred about the change where editors affirmed that having the same EIC and staff was enough that they didn't need to reevaluate it. As for Kotaku, I feel like that's speculative, and not really any more relevant than if IGP was inspired by another article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Cukie Gherkin. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cukie Gherkin. The article has improved thanks to the sources found. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarala Birla Academy

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

Delete because it fails NSCHOOL and SCHOOLOUTCOMES. RPSkokie (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. RPSkokie (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL, and is unsourced. I couldn't find any reliable sources for the article. Most of the article is likely WP:OR, as well. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 09:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While some sources are available, they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, although the sources in the Bengali version of this appear to be primary. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural keep‎. Hijacked article has been restored. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Mandir,Rishikesh

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

complete and utter unsourced mess of an article. can we blow it up? lettherebedarklight 晚安 09:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight 晚安 09:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Uttarakhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article was hijacked. It was previously Silhua, an article about a village that is likely notable. That article should be restored really. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The reason I'm not relisting is there isn't a chance of a consensus emerging for 42 articles with split, valid opinions. If folks think a merger into a decade is more useful to the reader, that's a conversation that can happen editorially. Star Mississippi 01:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1576 in Macau

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

Per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1964 in Nagaland, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1963 in Nagaland and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 in New York City, I nominate this article, along with 41 other articles for deletion.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are no secondary reliable sources asserting the "[X year] in Macau" is a topic for scholarly research. The articles fail WP:GNG, and thus should be deleted. All of these lists are also stubs, with very little information presented.

The complete list of pages nominated for deletion are:

33ABGirl (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 33ABGirl (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the other AfDs were for non-sovereign entities. I don't see why these lists would be considered indiscriminate, either, which is important, because list articles don't need to meet GNG, making this an invalidly formed deletion argument. These were the sorts of articles you'd see in actual print encyclopaedias if I remember correctly. The "no scholarly research" argument doesn't apply to lists. I think you could make a very comprehensive argument that we could have say 2000s in Macau instead of individual years based on the amount of information available in each article, and I would support that merge, but deleting would remove information that's completely validly in the encyclopaedia for years per Wikipedia:Timeline. SportingFlyer T·C 09:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Macau is a non-sovereign city-sized administrative division of China, so I think the examples provided (Nagaland - Administrative Division) & (New York City - City) is appropriate. 33ABGirl (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at Wikipedia:Timeline, which seems to be primarily a style guide, without any specific standards on the notability required for the inclusion of a list. Likewise, the linked page Wikipedia:Timeline standards is also mostly a a style guide, without any standards on notability. 33ABGirl (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Macau has the highest level of autonomy possible for a Chinese administrative region and is frequently referred to in the same breath as other sovereign countries, similar to Hong Kong. WP:LISTN is the valid guideline here, and Wikipedia:Timeline simply demonstrates that the "year in country" is a valid purpose as a result of: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." This clearly fulfills a recognized informational purpose, even though I do admit it could be organised better. SportingFlyer T·C 11:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hastily. There is simply no need for this breadth of detail on a small nation with no compelling need for subordinating historic information in this way, it's just unedited data. It's almost embarrassing when one comes across articles like this because it's unencyclopedic. What is the circumstance where a reader interested in Macau would need information laid out in this way? Macau has such a small impact on worldwide geopolitics at current that this doesnt meet notability guiidelines Cliffordben1994 (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't like it. Got it. That has absolutely nothing to do with our inclusion standards. SportingFlyer T·C 11:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per points put forward by SportingFlyer. Suonii180 (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment these have so little content combining down to say decades would make more sense KylieTastic (talk)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Guidelines
Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists says: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Specialized list articles says: "Timelines, using a standardized layout to present a chronological summary of a topic; examples include Timeline of architectural styles and Graphical timeline of the Big Bang. There is a special MediaWiki timeline syntax, but most Wikipedia timeline list articles do not presently use this recently introduced feature. For more information, see timeline."
Analysis of the guidelines and sources
The concept "timeline of Macau" has been discussed in independent reliable sources. Both Reuters and Macau Daily Times published articles with timelines of Macau. The information in these articles could be structured differently. SportingFlyer wrote, "I think you could make a very comprehensive argument that we could have say 2000s in Macau instead of individual years based on the amount of information available in each article". I think there is more than enough information in sources about Macau for there to be an article for each year in Macau. But as the individual year articles do not have much content yet, I think combining the articles is fine until enough information has been added to justify spinoffs. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, the articles should be kept with no prejudice against consolidation.
Sources
1. "Timeline-Macau's rise to world's leading gambling hub". Reuters. 2009-10-12. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14.
  The timeline lists events in 1999, 2002 (two), 2004, 2006 (two), 2007, 2008 (four), and 2009 (four).
2. "MSAR – A Timeline". Macau Daily Times. 2019-12-20. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14.
  The timeline lists multiple events for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant info to the respective Year in China articles. While Year in Macau would be valid WP:SIZESPLIT child articles if it became necessary, I don't believe that it is at this time. I'll note that there are a lot of these miscellaneous Year in X articles that need clean up, and I think that merging them like this is a good response in general. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stress (card game)

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

I can find no record of this game in over 100 book sources dedicated to card games. The online source cited is not a WP:RS nor are the others that I could find which look like circular references. Unless we can find RS to support the article, it should be considered for deletion. Bermicourt (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I looked into sources for this when rewriting the rules a few years ago and couldn't find any strong ones. --Belbury (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. New sources presented that were uncontested; no consensus to delete this article (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiArt

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

completely unnotable wiki. sourced to itself, poor quality sources, and trivial mentions. lettherebedarklight 晚安 07:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Websites. lettherebedarklight 晚安 07:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been editing WP for over 10 years. I took a quick look at WikiArt and can find no criteria for deletion present. The subject of the article is notable, since it was the topic of a serious article in the Smithsonian Magazine, one of its references. The article is written well, although a bit short, and contains references for its major points. There is no problem with WP:POV or WP:OR. On the other hand, the complaint that triggered this request for deletion is a brief, uncapitalized sentence that gives no examples to justify any of its four complaints. Because the complaint isn't reasonable as it currently stands, and because the topic relates to Ukraine, a country at war, my guess is that this deletion attempt is politically motivated. Again, that is just a guess, but it would explain its apparent attempt to vandalize WP. David Spector (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ah, yes, my nomination is of course politically motivated.

seriously, though, let's take a look at the sources:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
ref 1		this is a blog.	? moot	✘ No
ref 2		this is oprah's personal blog.	? moot	✘ No
ref 3		? moot	presumably just proof of the website's age (although the ref is borked).	✘ No
ref 4	borked, but is clearly the website's own blog	? moot	? moot	✘ No
ref 5	subject website	? moot	? moot	✘ No
ref 6			here's the article which you (presumably) claim to count towards wikiart's notability. yet the only mention of it is this: To train their algorithm, researchers used the more than 80, 000 images from WikiArt.org, one of the largest online collections of digital art. the rest is explaining the technology using wikiart's database. it's just mentioned as a database!	✘ No
ref 7			or is it this one? still the same problem, the only mention of it is this: The other network is the “discriminator” network, which is trained on 81,500 images from the WikiArt database, spanning centuries of painting. that's it.	✘ No
ref 8		?	still the same problem! the only mention of it is this: For the training, they used 81,449 paintings by 1,119 artists in the publicly available WikiArt data set. nothing so far is significant coverage.	✘ No
ref 9		?	it's the same thing again and again. mere referrals to wikiart as a database, nothing more.	✘ No
ref 10		?	i think you know what i'm going to say already.	✘ No
ref 11			only mention? trivial! The team collected a set of 15,000 portraits from online art encyclopedia WikiArt, spanning the 14th to the 19th century, and fed them into the GAN algorithm.	✘ No
ref 12			big surprise, it's the same darn thing! To start, Cetinic and her colleagues analyzed more than 100,000 images from WikiArt. that's it.	✘ No
ref 13		?	go on, guess.	✘ 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}}.

nothing here works. lettherebedarklight 晚安 11:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, letthere, for those details. I will reply here to each point when I have time to do so. David Spector (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the source table, that's not a significant coverage. Artem.G (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does "per nom" mean? I can't find a good definition of this phrase. Does it mean "because of its name"? If so, what is wrong with the name 'WikiArt'? David Spector (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"per nominator" lettherebedarklight 晚安 13:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I still don't understand "per nominator". Nominator is defined as "someone who officially suggests that a person should be considered to do a particular job, take part in an election, receive an honour, etc." Who suggested that someone be considered for doing something? Can I ask that you please use standard English here. Your deletion request is partially based on "per nom", and this makes no sense in English. David Spector (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this prominent art topic per major article mentions in Smithsonian Magazine, Time, and the others. Editors, please read the 'Reference' section of the page, the results of the source table seem to be opinions. Opinions differ, and this notable topic has been used by researchers and artists for years for its defined purpose. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
really? the mentions are all trivial... lettherebedarklight 晚安 13:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm reading them as central to the articles that they appear in (i.e. Time, Smitstonian Magazine articles on digital art). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there's one sentence about wikiart and then they immediately drop the subject. lettherebedarklight 晚安 15:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lettherebedarklight nominated the article for deletion. Basically this is a shorthand to say Artem agrees with Let...'s nomination. Star Mississippi 13:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination says that the sources are of poor quality, which can be refuted just by looking at the 'References' section of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how is that refuted? Non of the sources in the table (=in the article) is about the subject, it just mentions it sometimes in different contexts (like using wikiart's database to train the model, etc). That's not significant coverage. Artem.G (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the previously mentioned refs, it's also the subject of a couple of academic papers- IEEE and HCI 2017 — Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on its content and multiple publications about it, this is a notable resource. For example, [22] or [23], in addition to references provided by others above. My very best wishes (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Sean Brunnock and maybe the second source from My very best wishes, which are currently the only sources here that give any indication that the subject has significant coverage. I suggest that some of the keep !voters familiarize themselves with the difference between "significant coverage" and "being mentioned" before trying to participate in deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 1997 UK Championship. Consider this a very 'soft' redirect, in that if/when sources are found that demonstrate notability per GNG, editors are encouraged to revert the redirect and re-establish the article to a standard that meets our general notability criteria. Daniel (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Dziewialtowski

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

There are over 100 newspaper database matches for Dziewialtowski, but apart from a couple of paragraphs in the Aberdeen Evening Express for 26 November 1997, I couldn't find anything that amounts to more than brief, routine coverage of results. Looks to me like he fails to meet WP:GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cue sports, and Scotland. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - going by newspaper coverage alone, you might have a point...but if we take Dziewialtowski as failing WP:GNG, I feel we will need to apply this to about half of all snooker player articles we have on Wikipedia. I'm happy to contribute to that process if that is the route we choose to take, but I believe it would be counter-productive to our aim of increasing the coverage of snooker here. I take the view that he meets the criteria for notability established here - [24] - having been ranked 68 at one point during a career lasting twelve years, and having been a quarter-finalist in a major tournament, the 1997 UK Championship. It's regrettable that there was only a passing mention of that achievement, but in my view, this should not detract from the fact that such an achievement - coupled with his albeit moderate career success - is sufficient for him to be notable here. Montgomery15 (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Montgomery15: I sympathise with your view but I don't think it accords with policy. Wikipedia:Notability (sports), which links to the page you mention, states that "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it." Near the top of the page that you link to, it says "Please note that the wikiproject advice below... should not be relied upon in the article deletion process, which is subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not wikiproject recommendations." If you know of any other coverage in reliable sources about Dziewialtowski, such as in books or other media, please share the details. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My recollection was he got quite a bit of newspaper coverage at the time of the 1997 UK Championship and its aftermath. I suspect that this was largely as it was very unusual for a player at his ranking to get so far in a major tournament and there was a thought that he could be the next big Scottish player. While I would probably lean towards saying he is notable enough to have an article, I can see the case against as well. I would suggest if deletion is agreed to then a Redirect to 1997 UK Championship would be a good option as I do think people might search for him and this is undoubtedly the event that he is best known for (and why he would be searched for). Dunarc (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm loathe to vote because I'm unable to do a before search on my own for someone who would have been in the papers during the early internet age, but if BennyOnTheLoose's before is correct, then this should be deleted or redirected. SportingFlyer T·C 09:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Toledo Mud Hens season

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is currently sourced almost entirely to the MILB website (obviously non-independent); typically the individual seasons of minor league baseball teams don't get standalone articles, and my search didn't reveal anything that suggests this one should be an exception. Hatman31 (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hatman. Frank Anchor 14:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Natou

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FV Time Bandit

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

Has been redirected by several editors, no in-depth coverage outside show. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Alaska. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article per Onel5969's reasoning. A redirect post-deletion is probably fine. SportingFlyer T·C 09:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

Despite comments in this AFD, I don't see that it was ever PROD'd before. It was tagged for CSD speedy deletion but was declined. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saleem Samad

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

Fails WP:GNG, as all sources fail WP:SIGCOV for various reasons. I found some mentions of him in Google Books, but they all seemed to be passing mentions. A draftification was contested. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Bangladesh, and Canada. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I prodded it when it was created and agree with the nom.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salwa Mahalle

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

Not meeting notability for biographies or academics. Sources used are wikidata items and lists of where she's worked. All I find for sourcing are various university websites where she's spoken. Oaktree b (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Brunei. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a low impact of her research with a low h-index: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=U3jG5lEAAAAJ. For sure, she is not in the list of Highly Cited Researchers of Web of Science and there is an evident lack of WP:PROF. Chiserc (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. However a merger discussion, should that be desired, can be handled on the Talk page. There's no indication of a clear consensus emerging here Star Mississippi 14:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games – Individual Event

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Also fails WP:NOTDB. I would also support a redirect to Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, and Thailand. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is essentially a list. The article kind of has to be as it is. How would this be fit into (Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games) considering no other match results are listed there? The fact that we have any sources at all on this is a feat. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid keep reason. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsfan 1234 - The results are all sourced and we can assume there's more out there, but we also know we have limited access to it currently. How would this fit any other way? There's also some additiona references listed on the German page of the competition - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCdostasienspiele_1975/Badminton. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's common practice to create separate pages for individual and team events to remove burden on the main page. See other SEA Games Badminton articles where singles, doubles, team all have distinct articles. You can find more sources when searching for this subject in NewspaperSG. This is a page related to Southeast Asian Games, where badminton is a hugely popular sport and the mass reporting was done on local newspapers, some of which are available at newspapersg. So when you say that this is an "indiscriminate" collection of facts, you are completely wrong. It has a high importance when looking it from the view of Badminton World, being a significant regional event. zoglophie 06:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatantly fails WP:NOTDATABASE. The above claims of "high importance" and this being a "significant regional event" are not substantiated by the sources themselves, which are all listings of results and contain no prose. Avilich (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page is essentially a part of main page as said already, it was separated to reduce the weight on main article. Also, do you mean nothing knowing that top 5 players of the World at that time participated in this competition? zoglophie 09:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how notability works, and split articles are still required to meet GNG. Avilich (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games is not a large enough article that this split is a valid one. I don't agree with deleting the information, though - just the stand-alone article bit. SportingFlyer T·C 12:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks like a perfectly valid sub-article, and the sub-article does not necessarily need to meet the general notability guideline if the main event meets it; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handball at the Goodwill Games for a similar discussion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the logic, but the original article is so small no split is necessary. SportingFlyer T·C 15:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 1975 SEAP Games. The "parent" article is very short, so I think the split into different events is premature. Also, while the content of the article is currently very much on the line of WP:NOTDB I think it's plausible that more information could be found. The article has only been around for about 6 months now. Hopefully if the merge goes through, having that info moved out of an obscure sub-article will encourage searches for more in-depth sources. CarringtonMist (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ and the nomination was withdrawn. I leave the rename/move to interested editors. Star Mississippi 13:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Mosque Allahabad

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

Lacks coverage in reliable sources. This article is based on Wikipedia:Original research. BookishReader (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Pakistan. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You have got to be kidding me. It is not a made-up false thing (see photo at right, and see Commons category:Grand Mosque Allahabad). The article states it has 101 domes and capacity for 10,000 worshippers. It was under construction in 2018. Surely there is coverage of its construction, though perhaps not found by Google searching "Grand Mosque Allahabad", which is obviously not in Urdu and is perhaps not even its common name in English. Search "masjid Sindh" and other variations of placenames and "mosque". Here is one academic-type paper about it: Grand_Mosque_Allahabad_Kandyaro_5_april_1_corrected. There is a news report in OpIndia (a blacklisted site so my edit including the URL won't save) about a pretty horrible crime caught by CCTV (I believe in this mosque) "Pakistan: Maulvi rapes child reading Quran in mosque in Sindh province, caught on CCTV". User:BookishReader, your not liking the sources means you could tag the article, but opening an AFD is not called for without performing a decent wp:BEFORE effort. Given pretty obvious significance, if you haven't found significant coverage, you haven't searched enough. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Perhaps this AFD should be cut short and closed as "Speedy Keep". --Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Certainly gives the impression that this Deletion Nominator is going after the entire category of MOSQUES in Pakistan this time? Other Wikipedia editors have objected to him 'flooding the AfD Forum with a flurry of nominations'. See their comments above here at St. Patrick's Institute of Science & Technology about this. I also ask the same question WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Let's pay attention to Wikipedia guidelines, please...Ngrewal1 (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have to stop casting aspersions against me. This is already enough. Please strike this statement "Certainly gives the impression that this Deletion Nominator is going after the entire category of MOSQUES in Pakistan this time?" immediately. I know what it takes to create articles and I have started many articles about mosques: Ali Muhammad Khan Mosque, Akhund Panju Baba Mosque, Sawi Mosque. BookishReader (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The usage of Allahabad in the name limits my searches due to location from where I am accessing the internet. Allahabad is a place in India and this Grand Mosque Allahabad in is Pakistan. My search in English did not bring anything helpful and Urdu searches come mostly about mosques in Allahabad. I am not sure about the reliability of the paper available on academia because that's a social media site. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Doncram's both sources are unreliable. The article (OpIndia) they're referring to must be about a mosque in Allahabad, India. Academia.edu is just a file uploaded by the mosque itself (brochure like) - it is not an academic journal article. BookishReader (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to clarify whether sourcing is about the correct building or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BookishReader's claim that I confused India with Pakistan is reckless and false. The Opindia article refers to Sindh province, which is in Pakistan, in its title. I !voted "Keep". --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's honestly really difficult to find information on this, in English, in a way that clearly passes GNG. I've performed several different searches with several different spellings. It's clearly verified, though, it's clearly mentioned in news reports to the point where WP:OR clearly doesn't apply, I can't search in languages that should clearly demonstrate notability, and a church of this importance elsewhere would be clearly notable. SportingFlyer T·C 09:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Sindhi article sd:درگاهه الله آباد شريف (Dargah Allahabad Sharif) seems to be about the same complex. TSventon (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great find, TSventon! This is very helpful, as I was able to find Encyclopedia Sindhiana article with the help of the Sindhi Wikipedia article. Apparently, Allahabad Sharif is the common title, and this article was created under an incorrect title. I also found a page ur:درگاہ اللہ آباد on the Urdu Wikipedia. I'm withdrawing this nomination. BookishReader (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Cojocaru

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. The football player only came up in databases when I did a WP:BEFORE. However, that does not count as WP:SIGCOV. It's been tagged as {{BLP one source}} since May 2020, so I'm doubtful that any other sources could be found. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Moldova. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails GNG. My before search only brought up statistical directories. SportingFlyer T·C 09:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Devoke water 13:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails by every measure. Easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Thorn (character)

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

I'm pretty sure this character fails WP:GNG. I tried a search combination of "Black Thorn" + "DC", "Black Thorn" + "Kupperberg", etc. but I can only find WP:USERGEN blogs. I'd suggest a merge to List of DC Comics characters: B § Black Thorn, but I don't think much of the actual biographical text is usable.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to merge, it is WP:ALLPLOT. Adding more plot to a list that already fails WP:LISTN does not improve the situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article doesn't even try to hide the fact that it's non-notable. There is zero reception. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another cruft article about some exceedingly minor superhero. Dronebogus (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very minor character. Searching for sources using both her superhero name as well as her "real" name tuned up nothing in reliable sources. Not even notable enough to be merged or mentioned at any kind of character list article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Polonia destinations

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

As was outlined at the 2018 RFC on lists of airline destinations and quoted in a recent related AFD, these are not suitable content for Wikipedia. As per the subsequent AN discussion, subsequent AFDs may or will be nominated in a orderly fashion provided they have a link to the RFC, and the closer of any AFD was to take the RFC into account in any closing decisions.

To briefly summarise, the articles on their own would fail WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOTCATALOG/WP:NOTDIRECTORY. To outline and quote an argument in the linked related recent AFD mentioned in the first paragraph, WP:CORP would apply to articles dedicated to the products and services offered by a company. The airlines nominated on this list are also defunct (or have since closed down), and lack of (or zero) sourcing in nominated would pass that standard. The extremely limited coverage was found in only one of those articles (List of Midwest Connect destinations), which largely came from the closed airline's website (now a defunct link) and is therefore not an independent source and would not pass WP:INDEPENDENT. All other nominated articles are largely unreferenced and clearly fail WP:V.

WP:BEFORE is not mandatory, however doing a brief research found only a Air Wales route map on a blog website, whilst looking for MexicaLink and Delta Express destinations largely returned results linking to mirror websites of Wikipedia and may be worth being a minor mention in the parent airline's articles (Mexicana de Aviación and Delta Air Lines) under their history sections respectively.

I am open to other suggestions, but considering the listed airlines are defunct and the lack of available independent sources that may rescue those articles, for now I would recommend Delete as the nominator. Coastie43 (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Mexico, Poland, and United States. Coastie43 (talk)
Strong Delete all: If any airline destinations are violating WP:NOTCATALOG/WP:NOTDIRECTORY, it should be deleted because it isn't suitable for Wikipedia. CastJared (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are valid list articles, but the community disagrees. SportingFlyer T·C 09:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-encyclopedic subjects, see WP:NOTGUIDE as well as WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it really matters, but NOTGUIDE doesn't apply here as this is not the sort of information that would ever appear in a guidebook. And this is information that appears in the "guides to airlines" books, so it's not really trivia either. But that ship has sailed. SportingFlyer T·C 13:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Galván

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman:--Ortizesp (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage here, here, here, here, which is significant. Also played in the Gold Cup tournament which is a fairly important regional one.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment International call ups and injuries are routine coverage. Those sources provide no significant coverage of Galván. Dougal18 (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree it's not significant enough. Giant Snowman 18:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG as the only online coverage available is routine stuff like match reports, injury and call-up announcements (many of which simply include his name in a list). Jogurney (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jogurney, whose findings match my own. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Data Systems

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

Fails WP:NCORP. As far as I can tell, the article has had no sources in its nearly 10 year existence. Maybe there exists coverage in print media from the time the company existed? I wasn't able to find anything online, however. Uhai (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, United States of America, and Virginia. Uhai (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: An article describing a former consultancy company and its toolset. I am not seeing anything to indicate that the company or its tools attained distinct notability. The 2013 Merge discussion appears to have veered into the notability of CSC (which for me is clear) rather than DDS (which isn't); a redirect to Computer Sciences Corporation is a feasible WP:ATD though I would prefer there to be some reference (even a press release) to support adding mention there of the acquisition. AllyD (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Brooke Candy discography. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga (Brooke Candy and Only Fire song)

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

All of the sources appear to be promotional, with a link to the song inserted. It does not meet any of the WP:NSONG criteria. DreamRimmer (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the singer's article, I can't find links beyond what's used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the interviews? BiggestBidder (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Croatia and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brooke Candy discography. Interviews are appropriate resources for Wikipedia, but not notability is established through significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources. Interviews count as primary source. I did a search, and I could not find significant coverage on this song anyway. I think a redirect to the discography list if it is separate from the artist's main page is the standard target, but I am not opposed to this article getting redirected either way. Aoba47 (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gongjin-dan

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

The entire article is made up of unsupported extraordinary medical claims. I don't really see any content that is salvageable here. Tollens (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Medicine, and Korea. Tollens (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Is nothing but ridiculous pseudoscientific claims. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Artem.G (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not salvageable at this time. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have removed the unsourced claims. What remains is a sketch with some sourcing. It can be built back in a responsible way. There are numerous hits in a Scholar search so I believe the topic is notable. ~Kvng (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng: I am not sure what part of the remainder of the article is helpful - all that is left is a single sentence and a list of books. I can find no secondary sources with which to establish notability, and the claims in the articles found in a Scholar search make such extraordinary claims that I don't believe there's enough sourcing to justify their inclusion per WP:REDFLAG. I suppose the article could be draftified, but I see no value in the article's current form. Tollens (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Minimally, the value is that this is a remedy that exists and is discussed in sources and so is likely to be searched for by readers. I'd rather readers see a stub than nothing at all. Some of those readers will be curious, will search elsewhere and will come back and improve this article. That's how Wikipedia works. ~Kvng (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see what sources could be used to improve the article. I can find exactly zero reliable secondary sources even mentioning the existence of the remedy, but WP:GNG states explicitly that "Sources" should be secondary sources. I too would rather readers see stubs than nothing at all, provided that it is possible to expand the article, but there is simply nothing I can find that would be appropriate to cite. Tollens (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing usable here? ~Kvng (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not clearly that I can see, no. Those are all primary sources that, when taken together, seem to support the ridiculous claims that were in the article, but exceptional claims require exceptional sources, which a few unreplicated studies are not. Tollens (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If all of them had made a similar credible claim, they would absolutely be usable, but they instead all make different claims including but not limited to preventing fatigue, enhancing memory, eliminating insomnia, protecting the brain after a stroke, curing underactive bladder, preventing liver injury, reducing pain, preventing contact dermatitis, enhancing stamina, and improving circulation to the kidneys. It should be clear that if an effective remedy for all these things existed there would be more than a couple studies, and at the very least one reliable secondary source that has mentioned it. Tollens (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, note that WP:MEDRS states in no uncertain terms that Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. Tollens (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[25] does appear to be a secondary source but not a high quality one. ~Kvng (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - my mistake. Again, however, the conclusions they come to, even in that single source, are absurd. From their abstract's results section:

In clinical studies, GJD has the various effectiveness in cardiovascular diseases, alcoholic hepatitis, mild dementia, anemia. Also experimental studies related to the GJD show a variety of effects, such as anti-oxidative activity, neuroprotective activity, hepatoprotective activity, anti-inflammatory activity, immunological activity, reproductive recovery activity with fewer side-effects.

The claim is simply ridiculous - that literature review is not enough to support inclusion of anything in it. Tollens (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Traditional Korean medicine, seems to be the same thing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same thing but presumably a superset. Good idea but Gongjin-dan does not seem to be mentioned there. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh, it seems similar. I'd vote for !delete then. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant). Viable ATD. Should that be deleted, or other issues develop, they can be handled via RfD Star Mississippi 01:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Geography Bee and other related articles

– (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of independent secondary sourcing, fails WP:GNG -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 18:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 18:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Geography. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete all: It does need secondary sources, but it doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. CastJared (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NAQT officially includes this as one of the bees they recognize, which can be found here.

There are numerous sources for news coverage of winners of the event. Some recent ones include this one from CBS News Pittsburgh, this one from the Houston Chronicle, this one from the Dayton Daily News, and this one from the Chicago Tribune. There are many more that could be listed, but these bees and bowls easily get as much coverage as any other ones. And they are recognized by other quizzing organizations. Santoslhelper (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not my subject area, but there is quite a lot of RS on these events, such as in the Washington Post U.S. teens win international geography bee. Has a WP:BEFORE been done here? Aszx5000 (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aszx5000 That's about a different competition - the 7 competitions I mentioned above are sponsored by International Academic Competitions, while the one you mentioned is sponsored by National Geographic. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 21:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I now see what you mean Prodraxis, that WPO ref was for a different - and notable - bee. I am getting an impression that this is like Beauty Pagents, and some of these "Bees" are full commercial enterprises that sell pre-test books on Amazon and then market themselves extensively. Do you think the above group, which seem all connected, are from that genre? Aszx5000 (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aszx5000: Yeah.... it is a "beauty pageant" type of situation in here. Like there are some notable pageants like Miss America and tons of other non notable ones, there are notable Geography Bees and such (e.g. National Geography Bee) while there are other non notable ones. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 17:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some of the articles already include references from reliable sources about individual winners. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of a major tournament. And there are enough sources to support it. It has an entire website and sources can lead one to conclude that thisis notable. Especially when the David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) page redirects to this. iac Is one of the major options for quizbowl, and is notable amd credible. The recent IAC had 1,800 attending, excluding thousands who tried to qualify for nationals. 63.117.71.249 (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC) — 63.117.71.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

IP, notability is not inherited (e.g. just because a video game is notable it doesn't mean that any of the characters are also notable.) Plus notability requires significant coverage in independent secondary sources, not primary ones. That means it needs to have coverage that isn't from the official IAC websites, but there's a lack of that coverage. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 01:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ever since geo bee from. national geographic went away, iac is a source of bees 63.117.71.249 (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

but i agree these websites are kind of big 63.117.71.249 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.iacompetitions.com/

https://hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=26562

the 1.8K was for middle school, there are more for high school.

https://www.cedarhillprep.com/international-academic-competitions-2/

Note that its generally hard to include sources for this kind of topic. You just need sources from e.g. facebook as proof, not a source. This involves the presumption of your WP:GNG 63.117.71.249 (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, social media like online forums and facebook are not credible sources. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 01:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what sources do you expect thrn, these act as proof 63.117.71.249 (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RS for more information. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 01:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IP editor 63.117.71.249 may have a COI with the subject based on geographical and/or behavioral evidence - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI_IP_editor_at_an_AfD -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 04:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete – fails to meet notability guidelines and has received practically zero significant non-internal coverage CitizenKang414 (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at the top of the discussion about only a fraction of the coverage. I can include many, many more articles, both current and from years past, if needed. I will include a copy of the posting from above, below. Also, several non-profit universities have hosted tournaments in recent years, including Princeton University. High schools and middle schools report on their participation (non-internally). If necessary, I can add more links to coverage. I am new to this and do not know if it was better to put the links at the top of the discussion or here. NAQT officially includes this as one of the bees they recognize, which can be found here.

There are numerous sources for news coverage of winners of the event. Some recent ones include this one from CBS News Pittsburgh, this one from the Houston Chronicle, this one from the Dayton Daily News, and this one from the Chicago Tribune. There are many more that could be listed, but these bees and bowls easily get as much coverage as any other ones. And they are recognized by other quizzing organizations. Santoslhelper (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having done even more cursory research, I can provide a longer list of articles, if needed. Also, the amount and kinds of reportage - in local and state newspapers and television stations - seems to be exactly in line with every other Quizbowl tournament - those hosted by or listed by NAQT and other state organizations. Why it would be this particular bee and bowl that is suggested for deletion is a bit confusing, given the others. Scripps and National Geographic (before it ended) had corporate sponsorship which naturally leads/led to more national coverage for them. Santoslhelper (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all My initial reaction was that these may need to be nominated individually, because the nom didn't explain they are all relatively recent events run by the same organisation, hence why they were grouped together, and I was prepared to try and keep these or at least make some sort of argument to spin off the AfDs. That's not needed, though. What's very clear upon review is that there's no independent secondary coverage of any of these articles - it's all routine local coverage of winners, citing the org's website, and a link to a Google Sheet. SportingFlyer T·C 21:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But this appears to be the same kind coverage for all of the regular quizzing competitions at the middle school and high school level. Does that mean that Knowledge Bowl's and Commissioner's Academic Challenge's pages and other state bowl's and bee's pages should be deleted as well? None of the NAQT competitions receive the same coverage as Scripps. Theirs are all in line with the History Bee and Bowl competitions, but there is not a move to delete those pages. Why is this the only one, when local coverage of the events is what is generated for this kind of competition? Santoslhelper (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion - what matters is the sort of coverage the articles at this specific AfD receive. If other bees are basically sourced only to their own website, then they could probably be deleted as well. SportingFlyer T·C 21:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I do not think any of these competitions' pages should be deleted. But if what is noted above - citing org's pages for winners and local coverage - is all that is required for deletion, then nothing but Scripps would survive. It seems more prudent to recognize that quiz bowl and bee competitions at the middle school and high school level are valid topics for inclusion, but that their individual tournaments are not likely to garner more than annual local and statewide coverage. But the aggregate of that coverage, year over year, and the number of participants, in the many thousands every year, make for something significant. Santoslhelper (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not impossible. Wikipedia requires a topic to be notable before it can have a stand-alone article, and we define notability as being recognised by secondary sources. If the only sources we can use to create an article are WP:PRIMARY, then it's not notable enough. Unfortunately we also discount routine local news stories - none of the "local child wins bee" article are significant coverage of the bees, because they rarely talk about the actual event. If you can find secondary sources which talk specifically about the events, then we can keep these, but as they stand they're basically just extensions of the web sites, mostly if not all created by one user with few other edits outside these pages, which potentially suggests promotional concerns as well. The Times of India article at least has a couple sentences on the Geography Bee, but I don't think that's enough. We also have the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument to avoid during deletion discussions - each article must be judged on their own notability merits. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the thoughtful and detailed reply. I will try to gather sources more in line with what you suggest. Appreciate the guidance. Santoslhelper (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I posted below about PACE recognizing National History Bee and Bowl tournaments as a legitimate alternative for qualifying for PACE NSC events, which suggests they are as legitimate as any other quizzing organization.

Also, I have included a list of dissertations, academic books, and peer-reviewed articles that discuss National History Bee and Bowl, showing that there is an academic interest in the subject. I can include discussion of these in the main article (including ones that have been critical of representations in NHBB and other quizzing bowls), if that would help.

Bre’z, Skylar, "Reframing National Women's History Month: Practicalities and Consequences" (2021). Dissertations. 3715. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/3715

Dhingra, Pawan. Hyper Education: Why Good Schools, Good Grades, and Good Behavior Are Not Enough. NYU Press, 2020. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1n6ptp5. Accessed 8 June 2023.

Worrell, F. C., Knotek, S. E., Plucker, J. A., Portenga, S., Simonton, D. K., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Schultz, S. R., & Subotnik, R. F. (2016). Competition’s Role in Developing Psychological Strength and Outstanding Performance. Review of General Psychology, 20(3), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000079

Adams, Caralee J. "Advocates Finding Ways to Bulk Up History Learning; Many activities take place out of school." Education Week, vol. 32, no. 36, 10 July 2013, p. 10. Gale In Context: Biography, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A337610489/BIC?u=colu68650&sid=bookmark-BIC&xid=77baed3a. Accessed 7 June 2023.

Nicholas D. Hartlep, Daisy B. Ball, Kevin E. Wells, Hannah M. Wilk, Brandon O. Hensley; An Exploratory Analysis of Scripps Spelling Bee Winners, 1925–2019: Is There Evidence of Asian American Overrepresentation?. Journal of Minority Achievement, Creativity, and Leadership 13 December 2020; 1 (2): 248–273. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/minoachicrealead.1.2.0248

(While this last one is primarily focused on Scripps, it discusses the National History Bee and Bowl and National Geographic Bee alongside it.) Santoslhelper (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the link to the PACE page that discusses qualifying, one of several pages on their website where NHBB is discussed as a way to qualify for PACE NSC: website Santoslhelper (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For all the reasons that I have listed in replies. But, just to reiterate, to delete for the reasons proffered by the votes to delete so far would mean that all other quiz competitions and organizations for middle and high school (save Scripps, I know) would need to be considered for the same deletion, as they only generate similar local coverage and report their results on their own pages. It is not clear why this particular competition would be judged differently. I, personally, do not think any of them should be cut. Santoslhelper (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC) — Santoslhelper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete (all). Per my discussion above, this is not to be confused with the other notable Bees. These are commercial enterprises where the organizers generate revenue from selling test books to the young contestants (a bit like Beauty pageants). I haven't found - and nor has there been presented at this AfD - a single quality independent RS that gives SIGCOV to these tests (never mind WP:THREEREFS). Generally, when this straightforward test (no pun) can't be met, the "walls of text" often follow. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. The organizers do not produce study materials for this bee that are sold to the participants. I understand if the page is cut for some other reason, but what the above comment is stating is not true.

This leads me to believe that they, and possibly others, are confusing this bee and bowl with another. It is very easy to prove that the above statement is not true. Here is a link to the website for the bee and bowl. There are no materials being sold in the manner suggested above. Santoslhelper (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a for-profit and privately owned business. Here is the founder David Madden talking about his model (and promising never to sell to investors). There are many of these "pageants" with their own for-profit business models. Some sell their own books, some take licensing fees from others selling the books. Some make revenue from registration fees and hotel bookings etc. We have lots of articles on Wikipedia on for-profit enterprises, but as with WP:NCORP, they must demonstrate notability. Aszx5000 (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having quickly looked at his BLP, I don't think that the owner of these tests, David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant), would also get through AfD. Most of his refs are WP:PRIMARY from Jeopardy!, and there is little proper SIGCOV on him as a standalone person by quality independent RS. Aszx5000 (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would seem to not be the case as PACE (Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence) writes this on their website: "Teams cannot qualify for the PACE NSC through competitions whose questions focus entirely or predominantly on a single academic subject (e.g. National History Bee and Bowl, National Science Bowl). The Wild Card Committee may consider performance at subject-specific academic competitions in the event that an applying team has a lack of available opportunities to play all-subject quizbowl in their area." Here is the link to the PACE Wikipedia page. If they see National History Bee and Bowl as a legitimate competition for qualification for PACE NSC, that would suggest that National History Bee and Bowl is legitimate. Santoslhelper (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are not trying to prove existence/Legitimacy but notability. Being listed in PACE does not help notability. We need quality third party independent WP:RS doing WP:SIGCOV pieces on these tests. We don't have that as yet. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little surprised about your comment on commercial enterprises. Most sports leagues are private for profit commercial enterprises. Does that disqualify their sports from being listed on Wikipedia? What is the actual policy and / or rule on something being owned by a commercial enterprise? 107.137.69.146 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP and welcome to Wikipedia. We're not really focusing on the "commercial" part; instead we are focusing on notability. I do have to say that commercial or not these competitions fail the notability guideline as they lack significant coverage in independent secondary sources, which is the minimum threshold for notability. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 00:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) where they are mentioned as an alternative to deletion. Not notable, but a valid search term. The link between the two has been established in RSs [26][27] -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was going nominate David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) for AfD next, as I don't think he meets GNG either? Aszx5000 (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at his article, but I would guess that any AFD has a pretty good chance of resulting in a merge to List_of_Jeopardy!_contestants#1984–present, since he does get a coverage from RSs for his Jeopardy! streak and coming back for subsequent events. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any support for the late redirect suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems fine, I didn't see the link until I read the article, but it seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to just delete these under WP:ASTONISH. SportingFlyer T·C 10:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this more, my fear is that this is a commercial enterprise with well-populated UPE-type articles. Even in this AfD, we have seen determined SPA activity (for a commercial enterprise, which implies a UPE). Therefore, I also think we should still delete (and I also think should ensure that it cannot be undeleted without proper sourcing). Aszx5000 (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirect is fine, too. Honestly, I didn't expect to join Wikipedia - I'm just someone who is supportive of grade school and high school quizzing competitions as beneficial for young people, and I came on here to read more about it and saw that this was up for deletion and wondered why. Then I read some claims in the discussion that were clearly, demonstrably false ("beauty pageant" language and such), so I sought to set things straight. Then the conversation pivoted from that disparaging kind of language to talk of "notability," which, if that's the metric, I understand. It has been interesting to see the behind-the-scenes of all this, though, but as pure numbers are what counts, I fear I'm outnumbered. Santoslhelper (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only 13 edits to Wikipedia and within a few minutes of the above posting, you made your first edit for two days ... That is why I think these commercial enterprise articles need to be deleted (and watched after). Aszx5000 (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thought my post before was my last on the topic, but as I'm being attacked directly, I guess I have to wade in again. Yes, exactly (re: the edits). I have only edited this topic and edited soon after someone else posted (there's a notification I can see when something new has been added). I saw no reason to sign up before - my dissertation topics were well-represented and accurately presented, the teams I follow were updated regularly. Everything in Wikipedia that I followed seemed fine. Then, I saw something that seemed amiss. So, I thought, why not jump in a try to correct it. Isn't that the point? Isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia - to edit things to present the world an accurate accounting on a wide variety of topics? I had no idea Wikipedia was this hostile behind the scenes. Santoslhelper (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I'm not persuaded that the redirect makes sense. I don't think anyone looking for a list of official aromas will expect to be redirected to just one state. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state aromas

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

Fails WP:NLIST, as it is a list topic with a single listing, as no other state has an official aroma. There doesn't seem to be any point to having this article. A PROD was contested due to having "no valid reason for deletion". JML1148 (talk | contribs) 01:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, United States of America, and New Mexico. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 01:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing about NLIST requires a group or set to have more than one member. With 2 RS references, GNG is met. Also, PRODding within the hour of creation and nominating for deletion one week after come across as aggressive. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One item does not make a list. Content about the only entry, New Mexico, can appear in that state's article. Ajf773 (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ajf773 - The single existing entry can be (and already is) easily included in the infobox for New Mexico. Obviously if other states begin to adopt their own state aromas, then it might be a valid option to recreate a list, but when there is only one entry and no others on the horizon to be added to it, its simply too soon. Rorshacma (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of New Mexico state symbols#Other. One item is not a list and this should absolutely not be an article, but the information is also there so a redirect may be reasonable. Reywas92^Talk 03:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of New Mexico state symbols#Other, this fails WP:NLIST. CastJared (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with only one entry, I don't really think the redirect makes sense. SportingFlyer T·C 11:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is my opinion as well. I saw the redirect !votes, and I was going to say something but then I got distracted. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per sportingflyer. Dronebogus (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 09:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Masquelier

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

This is essentially advertising. The only links are to Masquelier's own site. The article says almost nothing about him: where did he study? where did he work? what did he publish? Web of Science lists 89 publications for Masquelier J, but a high proportion of these were written by other people with similar names, and 29 were published long after he died. Web of Science gives h = 15 (not too impressive if taken at face value) but h = 7 is a more plausible value if one tries to correct for homonyms. Although this was supposedly a distinguished French scientist, no one has thought of posting an article in French: the only translations are German and Egyptian Arabic. The article was created by an editor who is now blocked. Athel cb (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem to have done this correctly. (This is the first time I've nominated an article for deletion.) It should refer to the article Jacques Masquelier. Athel cb (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be OK now. At least, it looks the way I expected it to look. Athel cb (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You know that an article being a stub and an article not having a corresponding language version are not suitable for deletion, so I don't know why you included these in your rationale, as they make your total argument weaker. I think there is something to this article, but have not yet determined a !vote. He seems to have been the creator of condensed tannin (Oligomeric proanthocyanidin), based on these obits ([28][29]). His methods do appear to be researched by others, such as in this article in Nutrition Journal. Haven't yet made a determination on a !vote. Curbon7 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me!) 00:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The peer-review study cited and explained by Athel cb is of concern, but that's how research gets done, drug companies sponsor studies. The honorary awards are probably the best proof we have for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article used to be significantly longer, but another editor removed a bunch of text as unreferenced. See this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacques_Masquelier&oldid=1044714873 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not just unreferenced. The edit summary said "There is absolutely no source for these grandiose claims. The links are to a company selling Masquelier-brand snake oil." I agree. Athel cb (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article in a peer-reviewed journal shows that his work had a lasting impact. Weseler, Antje R.; Bast, Aalt (2017-01-19). "Masquelier's grape seed extract: from basic flavonoid research to a well-characterized food supplement with health benefits". Nutrition Journal. 16 (1): 5. doi:10.1186/s12937-016-0218-1. ISSN 1475-2891. PMC 5248468. PMID 28103873. His death notice mentions two honorary degrees, the position of rector at a wine-lovers' association, and the position of "dean of the faculty" at Bordeaux (presumably the University of Bordeaux). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, but notice that the authors of that article say "This work was financially supported by International Nutrition Company (INC) BV, Loosdrecht, The Netherlands.", and the web site of that company says "INC is the exclusive worldwide supplier of MASQUELIER's Original OPCs / ANTHOGENOL ® and MASQUELIER's ® FRENCH PINE BARK COMPLEX. Dr. Jack Masquelier is not only the discoverer of OPCs, he is also the inventor of both products' original production methods. INC's MASQUELIER's ® products are being made per the scrupulous manufacturing standards "set" by Dr. Masquelier." Back to advertising, it seems to me. However, I accept that honorary degrees from Laval and Bordeaux are legitimate evidence of notability. Athel cb (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete ~~Week keep~~. I'm just not seeing independent coverage needed for GNG or WP:NPROF in the above conversation. In the existing article, the only thing that maybe gives a little weight to notability is being a dean, but that is not good enough for NPROF under Criteria 6. The only thing I do notice is from a Google Scholar search where Masquelier is frequently mentioned for identifying the compounds (though that's about it). That's flirting with WP:BLP1E a bit, but I think there's just enough to have a stub. If it is kept, I do think it will benefit from combing out the promotional or closely tied sources, non-MEDRS health sources, etc. I could switch to delete if the google scholar search isn't what it appears to be though (e.g., they turn out to mostly be health woo articles). KoA (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went looking through the sources I mentioned earlier in scholarly searches with a bit more depth, and while borderline in many cases, I would say they didn't really quite hit the bar for WP:SIGCOV. It wouldn't take much for a few sources to get this person past the notability bar though given what I have seen, but we'd still have to be careful that they aren't of the fringe or WP:PUFFERY variety if such sources show up in the future. KoA (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. "Masquelier.com your guide to MASQUELIER's Original OPCs health benefits" as the main source?? Really? This looks like a blatant fail of WP:MEDRS and a WP:COATRACK to cite this non-MEDRS source. None of the sources listed appear to be all of in-depth, reliable, and independent of the subject. There is no real evidence of WP:PROF nor WP:GNG notability, and I agree with the "snake oil" comment above. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is very weak. I agree with drletion. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither the general nor the specialized notability criteria are met; there is no indication that we need to write about the person rather than the compounds. XOR'easter (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The argument by David is sound that while there may be something here, it horribly fails any medical reliability criteria. Curbon7 (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 09:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kannathil Muthamittal (TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG have added references from The Indian Express [30], The Times of India [31], News 18 [32] and bestmediainfo.com [33] and more coverage in Tamil language. --P.Karthik.95 (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: source eval, should fail WP:GNG and WP:NTVNATL

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Tirishan**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://bestmediainfo.com/2022/04/zee-tamil-to-launch-new-show-kannathil-muthamittal-on-april-11		? This is a self-published source, and the expertise of its author has not been established	Routine entertainment promo	✘ No
https://english.sakshi.com/news/tv/kannathil-muthamittal-new-entertainment-serial-zee-5-tamil-audience-153155	?	? Source is unavailable	?	? Unknown
https://tamil.indianexpress.com/entertainment/tamil-serial-kannathil-muthamittal-new-serial-in-zee-tamil-438425/		The source is a major newspaper	The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/tujhse-hai-raabta-promo-an-emotional-saga-of-a-stepmother-daughter-relationship/articleshow/65195211.cms?			about a completely different topic	✘ No
https://ttncinema.com/television/kannathil-muthamittal-serial-end-tommorow/cid10974151.htm		? This is a self-published source, and the expertise of its author has not been established	?	? Unknown
https://www.news18.com/news/movies/manishajith-leaves-zee-tamil-show-kannathil-muthamittal-5720005.html			about an actor	✘ No
https://tamil.news18.com/news/entertainment/television-zee-tamil-tv-serial-kannathil-muthamittal-update-777956.html			routine entertainment promo about a small twist in the story	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/tamil/kutumba-viruthugal-awards-2023-to-air-on-january-14/articleshow/96938985.cms			list of award show winners	✘ No
https://www.thehansindia.com/cinema/is-ganapati-master-the-answer-of-sri-vidya-dreams-find-out-in-zee-telugus-latest-fiction-show-maa-vaaru-mastaru-800971?infinitescroll=1			does not mention the topic	✘ No
https://bestmediainfo.com/2022/04/zee-tamil-to-launch-new-show-kannathil-muthamittal-on-april-11		? This is a self-published source, and the expertise of its author has not been established	repeat source	✘ 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}}.

Tirishan (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the source analysis, it's not notable. Trivial mentions in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oaktree b. Thank you Tirishan for the excellent source analysis. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Back Matter. (1999). American Annals of the Deaf, 144(3). [1]

[2] Front Matter. (1988). American Annals of the Deaf, 133(2). [2]

[1]

[2]