Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 28	June 30 >

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 keep‎. I'm closing this bundled nomination as Keep. You can seek draftification on individual articles as you see fit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Reyes

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

Does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge. Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" Let'srun (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [all do not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominees have not been confirmed as a federal district court judge to date. Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" ]:[reply]

Pinging BD2412, Novemberjazz, care to weigh in? There are others that have been separately nominated as well. Snickers2686 (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So here's my question then, if it's "too soon" then are we supposed to wait to create an article until after a nominee is confirmed? Thereby waiting months, maybe years to do so? That seems really counterintuitive to me. Snickers2686 (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Assuming these nominees will be confirmed is WP:CRYSTAL. Let'srun (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jeffrey Cummings; move to draft as to the rest. These articles raise an interesting conundrum. If these nominations are confirmed, as the substantial majority of federal judicial nominations eventually are, then notability will be automatic. If the unlikely event that any of these nominations are rejected in a Senate vote, that in itself would be a point in favor of the notability of the subjects. If these linger until the end of the administration and are never acted on, I don't think they confer notability thereby, but would be some evidence of notability in combination with other information on the subjects that might be found. Among these subjects, there is some coverage of notable rulings made by Cummings as a magistrate, and I think that one can likely stand as an article as is. The rest can be moved to draft for further research and/or developments. BD2412 T 03:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. A person is never nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios.

MIAJudges (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Tiffany Cartwright precedent, the articles can be moved to the mainspace until when they are actually confirmed. Let'srun (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Cartwright's page has already been moved back & she has not been confirmed yet. So if you're using that precedent, feel free to remove your deletion request. Thanks

MIAJudges (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That article was moved unilaterally by one user in contradiction to both the AfD and a corresponding deletion review. Curbon7 (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I think all of these individuals meet GNG, I do think that it might be worth reviewing the policy separately.--Mpen320 (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - meets GNG, and note that all of these judges have not been confirmed due to a hold put on them by a Senator in reaction to Trump's indictment. That is a political move, and should not be a factor in determining Wiki-notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is my vote as a bundled nomination. Individually they could be assesed and best option would probably be Draftify for those that don't pass GNG before confirmation. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:51, 6 July 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!} 23:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assisi Convent School (Etah)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Assisi Convent School (Etah) (2nd nomination)

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

Since the last AfD, we are a lot stricter on school notability. This one is unreferenced and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. AllyD (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL as well as due to multiple issues TAG on the main page. Charsaddian (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't comment on the sources since there are none. A quick search doesn't produce anything significant on this school either - Imcdc Contact 14:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I echo what the others here have said. My WP:BEFORE shows up no sources. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:21, 6 July 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!} 23:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Elerewe

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

Article about an entrepreneur that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. The sources are mostly passing mentions of the subject. The position he holds does not confer notability on the subject. Possibly WP:TOOSOON or WP:PROMO. Jamiebuba (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

A person who is the head of the Minifootball Association of Nigeria isn’t notable enough because he’s head of a Nigerian Association? You’re expecting me to put ESPN and Goal.com links for a Nigerian football administrator instead of that from the local media? OR aren’t Nigerians allowed to have stubs?

Why are Nigerian pages such easy targets to pull down? Bob Lord (football chairman) is just a football chairman, so why is his page still standing?

I réalisé that most new Wikipedia editors don’t know what they are doing as regards inclusivity and equity in handling different pages from different background.

This reminds me of the time when someone went through all the pages I created and nominated for deletion all the Nigerian pages but left any page that I created of subjects of European or American descent.

I am a big supporter of sticking to the path of Wikipedia that you are familiar with. They are so many things to do on Wikipedia to help the community, scoring cheap points by pulling down pages of an already vulnerable demographic reeks of weakness and sycophancy. Don’t just meander into facets you aren’t familiar with. And y’all need to do better Amaekuma (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That other fellow has a chapter in a book about him, this guy sells real estate and runs a mini-football league for little kids? Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t even know what Minifootball is and you feel you’re qualified to come and vote here. Amaekuma (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here in wiki for 20 years and at AfD for a little over a year, I can honestly comment on the quality of the sources used. The subject of the article is irrelevant, we need sourced that discuss the "thing" or it can't be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The minifootball position is likely not notable and I can only find sourcing about his nomination. The real estate is probably why it's here, some PROMO. Routine announcements, no features about the individual in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In your above question you asked if Mini football league was a league for little kids. AND EXACTLY IS THE PROBLEM WE ARE HAVING ON WIKIPEDIA. CLUELESS PEOPLE TAKING BIG DECISIONS. You don’t even know what the topic is but you feel you’re qualified to know if it’s worthy of notability. Amaekuma (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the you say because the other subject has a chapter in a book, he is worthy of a page. The Nigerian in question here is the head of Real Estate Developers Association of Nigeria in the nation Nigeria’s capital. In addition to being a Chairman of the Minifootball ass. and a business man. Y’all need to do better. Amaekuma (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaekuma do not bludge disscussion Wikipedia:BLUDGEON and do not attack and shout at other editors just because they don't agree with your opinion. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made a valid point, and if you can’t tackle the validity of my point, then don’t try to evade it by tackling my approach.

According to this article you shouldn’t mark a page for deletion just because you aren’t familiar with the topic.

Amaekuma (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You obv didn't read what I send.. Also you don't make valid point by attacking and shouting at someone and also aggressively trying to prove that you are right. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A person admitted that he doesn’t know what the meaning of the page’s topic is about, but yet went ahead to vote. And I’m supposed to just overlook that detail?

Don’t make this page about you, This is a voting page for a page that I created. Amaekuma (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By being toxic you just proving my point but anyway this article is not notable and other editors can see that. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you get more ants with honey than vinegar, but that's beside the point. We're looking at quality of the sources. This individual has none. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator and Oaktree.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 1:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, as many of this creators other articles have. Nswix (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His mother passed away [1], is about the only sort of non-fluff coverage I can find for this football person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because sources do not establish notability. We should also delete other minifootball admins. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the source assessment table. All 17 sources focus primarily on two events, with almost no significant coverage. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
TVC News			✘ No
Daily Post (Nigeria)		~	~ Partial
The Guardian (Nigeria)	per WP:RS/P		✘ No
Independent Nigeria			✘ No
The Authority			✘ No
This Day			✘ No
City People Magazine			✘ No
Media Trust			✘ No
Media Trust			✘ No
The Nation (Nigeria)			✘ No
The Sun Nigeria			✘ No
National Waves			✘ No
The Punch			✘ No
TVC News			✘ No
The Sun Nigeria		~	~ Partial
Daily Trust			✘ No
Independent Nigeria			✘ 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}}.

Delete. No in depth coverage of the subject (WP:SIGCOV). Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:29, 6 July 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!} 23:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Pick

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

Routine mentions, coverage, fails WP:NCORP. User:Shahidm, the founder of this company, created this. US-Verified (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Maryland. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources available are not compelling. Graywalls (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see two sources that are directly connected to the company and the third is a press release so none of them can be used. The founder wrote this so we have WP:COI. - Imcdc Contact 14:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archi Fataki

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

Article about semi-pro/amateur journeyman footballer which doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Fataki has never played football at a high-level; stints in the Belgian Second Division and Albanian Kategoria Superiore represent the "peaks" of his career. As a journeyman who has played for many clubs throughout Europe and Africa, there is a lot of routine coverage available (almost all of it consisting of match reports and transfer news/speculation). However, I cannot locate in-depth coverage in reliable sources that is independent of the subject; the best source I could find is an ADIAC transfer news piece that contains a paragraph recap of his career. Unfortunately, none of the sources included in the article now or that I found in my WP:BEFORE search could be paired with it to satisfy the GNG. References 1-13 are either not independent (his employers Balma SC, MDA Foot, FC Rouen), not reliable (Walfoot, Footpy) or routine (Le Foot, Gazeta Panorama x2, ADIAC, Gazeta Gerçek). External links 1, 2, 4 and 5 are not independent (Balma SC and FC Rouen again), not reliable (Walfoot again) or are interviews that contain almost zero secondary coverage (Actufoot). External link 3 (Paris-Normandie) is an interview with some secondary coverage but no byline. It mentions his performance in a trial friendly match (hardly notable) and the briefest of mentions of his footballing origins. I found plenty of other match reports, transfer news and interviews (Sud-Ouest, Footdrc.com) that are not SIGCOV, so I just can't see how this article meets our guidelines. If we think this sort of low-quality coverage is sufficient, the result will be that almost every semi-pro or amateur footballer with a lengthy or journeyman career can have an article. Jogurney (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - comprehensive source assessment done by the nominator seems accurate to me Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 1 July 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 Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 02:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harkara

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

Unreleased films and Production are not notable and contains ^{[peacock prose]}. Monhiroe (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Monhiroe (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear Monhiroe. Most of the feature films before release in Kollywood do have a Wikipedia page to information about the movie. All the information in this page were cited with proper new sources. The movie is in final stages of distribution rights and release.

That being said, the peakcock prose is a possible issue. I will edit it out. Thanks Tgowtham (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The film is get eligible once it released and get 2 or 3 notable reviews,Ex: Maalai Malar,Dina Thanthi,The Times of India ets.. This production is not notable,Elier the page was in Oattathoodhuvan-1854 and later page was is moved harkara which is already delete page name.Yes some films are eligible for (upcoming films) when the production is notable. Example ( Jailer (film),Maamannan). If u have good sources once u announced release date, The page is eligible.Until that u can keep in draft. Monhiroe (talk) 04:52, 23 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!} 23:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom and WP:NFF: films that . . . have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable. -- Visviva (talk) 02:19, 1 July 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. Sandstein 14:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Schecroun

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:PERP. All I could find is a passing mention in a Time article about something completely unrelated. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and France. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe merge into Art forgery? I don't find any online RS, But see these [2] [3] [4] It looks like he was included in The Art Game by Robert Wraight (1966). Anyone have access to the print copy of this book? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an unsourced claim in the article that eight forgeries netted £25,000; that's not a lot. By comparison, Han van Meegeren got an estimated "$30 million (approximately US$254 million in 2022)". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any SIGCOV of him. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an initial side note, WP:PERP seems to be rather confused about itself, and links out to WP:WELLKNOWN for its criterion for being "well-known". But WELLKNOWN is part of BLP and is focused on "public figure" as a privacy standard. I'm not sure that's coherent enough to try to follow, but in any event, for the following reasons, I'd say it is safe to say that Schecroun is/was well-known in that sense. For starters, his 1962 arrest and confession attracted massive worldwide attention (e.g. Reuters, UPI, NYTNS). That was certainly the peak of his fame, but it wasn't entirely the end of it. For example, in 1974 he was featured in an Omnibus episode titled "Don't Take It For Granted", in which he apparently showed how forgery is done. Jeppson gave him a three-page profile with some excellent biographical detail in Fabulous Frauds (1970). Catherine Dossin has briefer but nontrivial coverage in The Rise and Fall of American Art (Routledge, 2016). I have reached my personal limit for the night but I have no sense of being anywhere near running out of coverage. -- Visviva (talk) 04:06, 24 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!} 23:29, 29 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!} 23:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BraveJusticeKidsCo.

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

Database reports. Fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Paid-for spam by an editor-for-hire. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A lot of the sources aren't even about the company itself. And the one that are only have a have a brief mention which is not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. - Imcdc Contact 14:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is what the company would say about itself. Corporate notability, like general notability, is based on what third parties say about the company, but that is lacking in this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, CORPDEPTH per above. SWinxy (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also wasn't able to find any sources that would meet WP:GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:18, 6 July 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!} 04:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi Inter College

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

Unreferenced for 13 years. No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Was this incident of vandalism at the same school? The district doesn't match, but sometimes districts are split or merged. "Mahatma Gandhi's statue desecrated in UP college". Deccan Herald. 2019-09-13. Retrieved 2023-06-22. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jalaun district and Muzaffarnagar district seem to be quite far apart. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find GNG-level soures for this school. It doesn't help that its name seems to be shared with a lot of schools in the region. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. While you search the college, you will find several generalised links but nothing specific to this institute. Charsaddian (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find anything significant on this school from a quick search - Imcdc Contact 02:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and my own search. Doesn't seem to be anything to work with here. Redirection to Charthaval#Education is tempting but would raise its own problems as this doesn't seem to actually be the primary topic (as noted, there are a great number of Gandhi Inter Colleges) and a dab page would run into its own complex issues. -- Visviva (talk) 02:36, 1 July 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!} 23:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steak (youtuber)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. May have qualified for CSD A7 (no indication of importance) except the YT channel has 184k subs and might satisfy that requirement on its own, however I am not finding suitable coverage for inclusion. ASUKITE 23:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Internet, United States of America, and Utah. ASUKITE 23:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found for this youtube person, only hits to videos of people cooking steaks. Nothing in RS or anywhere. Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources and less than 200k subscribers, which is fairly unremarkable for gaming youtubers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not a single piece of SIGCOV on this guy. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hungry per above. Er, I mean, delete. SWinxy (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The sources provided by ExRat are uncontested, which means that we need not discuss the questionable arguments about inherent notability of cabinets. Sandstein 14:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jaan Tõnisson's first cabinet

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

This article contains 2 sentences and one table, it has one reference which seems to be user-generated content and is unreliable. It Fails WP:NOTABILITY PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Organizations. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could be reading the translation wrong, but the source appears to be a website run by the National Library of Estonia and not user-generated content. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The style and wording of the page seemed user generated, but even so this article has one source. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as not an argument and pretty much stating WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS. The visual appeal of the website shouldn't be relevant and it's not surprising there is limited English language sources on an early 20th century eastern european nation. But I don't think we have any sourcing issues here, a National Library website is generally going to be an WP:RS. It's just a question of WP:NOTABILITY. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Estonia. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. All Estonian cabinets (Category:Cabinets of Estonia) should be automatically notable--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False just because something in a certain catagory exists does not make it notable PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. Every cabinet of a national or subnational government will be the subject of coverage by multiple reliable sources, and every cabinet member is automatically notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
False there is no coverage PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." - WP:NPOL PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I do not see the point to be honest.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only having one source does not qualify as Significant Coverage

WP:NPOL states: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."

WP:GNG states:

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then go and find the coverage rather than AfD an article on an obviously notable subject. Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty clear by now that the arguments of the nominator are pure lunacy. Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"pure lunacy" isn't a very WP:CIVIL thing to call someone's arguments. It's just an AFD and a reasonable disagreement on the level of sourcing needed here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter This article has not been proven notable by wikipedia's standards as per above quotes from WP:GNG & WP:NPOL PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you are proving my point. Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tõnisson's first cabinet is covered extensively in both Krista Aru's 2019 two-volume biography Jaan Tõnisson – rahvajuht ja riigivanem (Rahvusarhiiv, ISBN: 978-9949-630-05-9 and 978-9949-630-06-6), and Jaan Tõnisson Eesti välispoliitikas 1917-1920, compiled and edted by Heino Arumäe, Tiit Arumäe and Kärt Jänes for the Jaan Tõnissoni Instituut. I am sure there are multitudes of other sources. ExRat (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could have been SK3 given, e.g. members actually appointed to a cabinet are certainly no longer candidates, among other issues, though of course that's now moot. All the best, Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:38, 7 July 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!} 23:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Sultan

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

I don't see any evidence that the subject passes WP:NPROF or GNG. Assistant professors are rarely notable and this doesn't seem to be an exception - his most highly cited paper has 65 citations, which is far from satisfying WP:NPROF#C1, especially in a high-citation field. The citations in the article comprise primary sources, his own works, and news items in which he provides a quote in passing - there's no independent biographical coverage of the subject himself. The article appears to have been the subject of extensive COI/UPE editing, which wouldn't be a reason to delete it if it were actually notable, but which furthers the impression that the topic doesn't meet our standards for inclusion. Spicy (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychiatry, Venezuela, and United States of America. Spicy (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not a WP:NPROF pass and I don't see WP:GNG coverage either. -- asilvering (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with everything the nominator says: we do not have a pass of WP:PROF based on citations or anything else, nor any reason for a separate pass of WP:GNG, and the editing history is also problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't pass WP:NPROF or WG:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF and WG:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:21, 6 July 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!} 23:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearfly Communications

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

This article is about a company that does not satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. The sources are not infact WP:RS, ref 3 links to its testimonial page. The sources I actually found are from search of "Greenfly Networks Inc" but again are just regular seed funding news. Jamiebuba (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Jamiebuba (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it does not demonstrate sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources. The company's page is largely based on self-published sources, such as the company's own page. Additionally, the page does not show how the company has significantly impacted its industry. --BoraVoro (talk) 09:34, 3 July 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!} 23:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Cristoforo

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

Adjunct professors are rarely notable. Fails WP:NPROF. US-Verified (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have established notability. "Adjunct professor" has two possible meanings in North America: a status-only appointment, where someone does research and teaching at a university which should be recognized, but is not paid for that work; or someone who is paid by the course to teach (often badly). Even though "adjunct professor" does not give automatic notability, this person's accomplishments (including as a founder of a university program) point to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject has 150 citations and an h index of 6, so does not meet NPROF C1. His appointments and awards do not approach any of the other NPROF criteria, and there is no evidence of a GNG pass. None of the keep reasons above are valid arguments for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article nor in his citation record suggests a pass of WP:PROF, and we also don't have any of the in-depth independent reliable sourcing that would be required for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low citation count. Doesn't meet WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dalma Llinás

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

Most of the coverage is based on press releases/guest posts. Fails WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Colombia. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 29 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!} 23:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shunan English School

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

This article has existed for years and has a complicated history with a lot of deleted revisions (COPYVIO problems? Maybe an admin can check). In any case, all previous versions have the same problem: a complete lack of references. Google finds nothing other than job openings at the school and Wikipedia mirrors. The general notability criterion is not met. Pichpich (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Delete: Seems to be written by someone connected to the subject, WP:CONFLICT PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the present version is basically the work of Shunantajima (talk · contribs) and it's his sole edit on Wikipedia so that doesn't look too good. As for the many redacted versions in the history, I took a look at the talk page (should have done that sooner!) and it seems like the article was used to attack the school for the way it treated its employees. But in the end, all versions, positive or negative, have zero reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references and search doesn't bring up anything significant. - Imcdc Contact 02:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to its website, the Japanese name of Shunan English School (SES) is "周南英会話". Here is a source I found:
1. "国際人育てて50年" [50 years of raising international people]. 新周南新聞社 [The Daily Shinshunan] (in Japanese). 2021-10-25. Archived from the original on 2023-07-01. Retrieved 2023-07-01.
  The article notes: "県内唯一、英語に特化　SES周南英会話　　周南市桜木1丁目のSES周南英会話（小林弘幸社長）が創立50周年を迎えた。社会人向けのビジネス英会話、英検受験対策な..."
  From Google Translate: "SES Shunan Eikaiwa (President: Hiroyuki Kobayashi) in 1-chome Sakuragi, Shunan City, SES Shunan Eikaiwa, the only company in the prefecture that specializes in English, celebrated its 50th anniversary. Business English conversation for adults, measures for Eiken exams..."
Cunard (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not assert substantial notability either as a school or as a company. This is a small for-profit organization and would need to pass WP:NCORP. I am not convinced that the local newspaper article fulfills the requirements for significant independent coverage in reliable sources. We can only see two lines of it and can't be sure whether it is dependent coverage; this level of coverage is probably routine. Dekimasuよ! 07:18, 5 July 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, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Business (record store)

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

A quick check shows no indication of passing WP:NCORP. Insufficient in depth, intellectually independent, reliable coverage in multiple sources of adequate broad circulation. Most of existing sourcing is based on primary sources, their own websites and UGC like Musicbrainz. Graywalls (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Washington. Graywalls (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most I was able to find on a WP:BEFORE was minor coverage in local papers but not enough to prove notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:25, 6 July 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 Companion (Doctor Who). Star Mississippi 15:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John and Gillian

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

Despite being some of the earliest spin-off companions for Doctor Who, I cannot find any sources for these two. The article right now is just plot summary and does not meet GNG nor SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Pokelego999 (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to [thumbs through list of Doctor Who lists] Companion (Doctor Who). Dronebogus (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who) - Minor characters, and the two sources included in the article only contain one-to-two sentences of "coverage" on them. Searching for more sources just gives more of the same - just very brief mentions here in there as, essentially, a minor piece of Doctor Who trivia. Honestly, this could very well be deleted, but since they are already listed at the main Companion article, a Redirect wouldn't hurt. Rorshacma (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous two. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note The user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pokelego999 has over approx two days mass-nominated for deletion 51 Doctor Who-related articles as follows:

Blinovitch Limitation Effect, Destrii, Muriel Frost, Kadiatu Lethbridge-Stewart, Iris Wildthyme, Shayde, Fey Truscott-Sade, Sam Jones (Doctor Who), Molly O'Sullivan, Jason Kane (Doctor Who), Flip Jackson, Mila (Doctor Who), Charley Pollard, Evelyn Smythe, Thomas Brewster (Doctor Who), Abby (Doctor Who), Vislor Turlough, Rutan (Doctor Who), Draconian (Doctor Who), Sisterhood of Karn, Henry Gordon Jago, Professor George Litefoot, Forge (Doctor Who), Timewyrm, Threshold (Doctor Who), Coal Hill School, Nimrod (Doctor Who), Nobody No-One, Borusa, The Monk (Doctor Who), Polly (Doctor Who), Ben Jackson (Doctor Who), List of UNIT personnel, John and Gillian, Shalka Doctor, Sabbath (Doctor Who), Chris Cwej, Grandfather Paradox (Doctor Who), The Other (Doctor Who), Alan Jackson (The Sarah Jane Adventures), Vortis (Doctor Who), Thal (Doctor Who), Ogron, Werewolf (Doctor Who), Sil (Doctor Who), White Guardian, Mara (Doctor Who), Sabalom Glitz, Castellan (Doctor Who), Professor Edward Travers, Alpha Centauri (Doctor Who)

Such a mass deletion would significantly alter the coverage of Doctor Who on wikipedia. WikiProject Doctor Who was not informed beforehand. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These characters are almost all totally non-notable, and projects do not own their topics. Dronebogus (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it is worth noting that Taggy McDriveby's mass-nominations are causing considerable flooding of AfDs (also resulting in some question as to whether they're genuinely carrying out Before) leaving anyone interested with limited time to respond and find sources. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect per Rorschacma. There isn't WP:SIGCOV to support an article. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:23, 6 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julia K. Munley

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

does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge. Let'srun (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone. Most nominees have numerous other reasons they are notable without the announcement, otherwise they wouldn't make it to that point. Even if the nomination fails it receives numerous headlines & therefore the person is still notable. MIAJudges (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, there is in fact no notability criterion granting presumptive notability to a nominee to the bench, nor to someone mentioned on the White House website. Whether or not the subject is destined to receive "numerous headlines," the fact is that as of yet, she has not. Ravenswing 06:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not understanding how the president of the United States nominating somebody to a lifetime appointment to a co-equal branch of the government & including a bio of them in the announcement not enough to make a person notable. The nominee is covered by numerous media outlets across the country once the announcement is made.

MIAJudges (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me explain it to you. On Wikipedia, notability is determined through meeting one or more of several notability guidelines: in this case, for instance, by meeting WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV or WP:POLITICIAN. SIGCOV is the key here: it is not sufficient for a source (however reliable) to say "President Biden sent Soandso's name to the Senate for nomination." SIGCOV goes into some detail about what's needed, but the gist is that a source needs to discuss the subject -- not the nominating process, not President Biden, not the Senate Judiciary Committee, the subject -- in "significant detail," so that an article could be credibly made from that source alone.
And that is it. I've told you a couple of times over that there are no other pertinent, explicit criteria. I have challenged you a couple times over to demonstrate that there is pertinent, explicit criteria such as you describe. We do not make determinations based on what you think should be in the criteria were you the one making the rules here. We make them based on the notability criteria already in place. Period. Ravenswing 10:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:JUDGE and appears to meet GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my !vote, I misunderstood the subject. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no independent, third-party, reliable sources that give the subject the "significant coverage" in multiple sources that the GNG requires in order to meet notability standards; what we have here are primary sources and namedrops. Nor does the subject meet WP:JUDGE, as FormalDude asserts; the minimum bar for WP:JUDGE is serving in a statewide court. The subject's highest judiciary post is in a local county court. Ravenswing 06:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see how this might conceivably pass WP:JUDGE. Also, doesn't pass WP:GNG through SIGCOV, as per Ravenswing. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 13:58, 1 July 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. Withdrawing AfD now that the distinction has been clarified between established chairs and personal ones. (non-admin closure) - car chasm (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Georg Niebergall

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

No indication of meeting WP:PROF. Article was deprodded with the claim that this professor seems to hold a named chair, which I can find no evidence of on the university website. - car chasm (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Courtesy ping to Necrothesp; where did you see that he was a named professor, as I was also unable to locate this claim? Curbon7 (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the German system, full professors are generally chair of something. Niebergall is Chair of Logic and Philosophy of Language [5]. Whether that should be considered as equivalent to the sort of named chair that one might have in a US university is unclear to me. I have been told that there is a difference between established chairs (that are held by multiple people in sequence) and personal chairs (given only to one person as a way to list them as full professor) and that one is better than the other, but I don't really understand the distinction myself nor how to tell which one Niebergall has. Perhaps there is someone more familiar with German academia who can clarify. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not willing to extend automatic notability to all German full professors and I don't see anything here that goes beyond that, or anything in the citation record that would justify WP:PROF#C1 notability. The Stegmüller Award is an early-career award [6] that I think is too low-level for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to weak keep now that the distinction between established and personal chairs has been clarified and we have documentation that he holds the more prestigious kind. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I love being misrepresented. My edit summary was actually: deprod; appears to hold an established chair. I didn't mention a named chair, as I am misquoted as doing. An established chair, as David Eppstein points out, is one that always exists, is only held by one individual at a time, and to which one is appointed, as opposed to a personal chair, which is merely an academic promotion to professorial rank (usually for long service) with no actual established chair attached. Named chairs (which are just established chairs that have the name of an individual or organisation attached, either because they funded the chair or in their honour) are relatively rare outside North America, where they seem to be the norm for established chairs. But he does hold an established chair (the Chair of Logic and Philosophy of Language). These are equivalent to named chairs and therefore meet WP:PROF #5. Many professors who already hold personal chairs are later appointed to established chairs, which are most definitely more prestigious. Wikipedia does not revolve around the American way of doing things, which is why PROF #5 quite clearly states "or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon". -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Necrothesp says, holding an established chair (as opposed to a personal one) in Germany, a country that does not have named chairs, fulfils criterion No. 5 of WP:NPROF. Judging from the phrasing in the article, I wasn't sure whether the is the case with Niebergall, but source No. 3 explicitly states that he is the Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für Logik und Sprachphilosophie, which translates to 'holder of the chair for logic and the philosophy of language', a significant difference to just 'professor' for these subjects. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:01, 3 July 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!} 22:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rievaldo Doorson

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

One official appearance with the Suriname national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South America. JTtheOG (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a passing mention in The Sun, which is not WP:RS, and that's about it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 6 July 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!} 22:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrijel Savić Ra

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No indication of notability. Fails WP:NARTIST. UtherSRG (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Serbia. UtherSRG (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. 2/4 external links only have a passing mention of Gabrijel. I'm Serbian, and I don't know anyone who's heard of him. Not that that's important. Still fails WP:GNG. 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 10:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed the 2 external links that were passing mentions. Of the remaining two, one is a paid listing, the other is dead. I am not finding any reliable sources for the article. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:25, 5 July 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 Mount Everest#Selected climbing records. Star Mississippi 15:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kazi Sherpa

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

A declined PROD. Should never really have been a BLP as the subject's notability is tied to a climbing record that was never in itself notable. Coverage is limited to the recording of him holding the time record at a given moment, but nothing else beyond that. No SIGCOV of coverage on the person as a notable individual in any quality RS. Could also redirect to Mount Everest#Selected climbing records. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mount Everest or Mount Everest#Selected climbing records —siro χ o 04:17, 30 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!} 22:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse August

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. JTtheOG (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:11, 30 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sidssy

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

i dont believe this article is notable. the real "notable" thing that she did is "talking in congress"? ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 17:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Colombia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she appears to have received coverage over time for her role as a high-profile human rights activist. She is "Sidssy Uribe, sister of Lucas Villa, who was murdered in May 2021 in the city of Pereira during the days of the national strike" (according to Colombian president calls for talks with victims of the State, Prensa Latina, 2023); see also “A mí no me pueden venir a exigir que yo no debería hablar”: hermana de Lucas Villa (El Espectador, 2021 interview with secondary context, referring to her as Sidssy Uribe Vásquez); “Nos informaron que el asesino de Lucas Villa fue sacado del país”: Sidssy Uribe (El Espectador, 2022, secondary context and some interview, also referring to her as Sidssy Uribe Vásquez); Colombia: mayoría en el Senado respalda actuación del ministro de Defensa (France24, 2021, quoting her Congreso de la República testimony, which was about more than her brother). Other examples of her apparent high-profile role as an activist include Hermana de Lucas Villa propone que grupo ilegal 'La Cordillera' esté en diálogos de paz, RCN Radio Jan. 2023; Muerte de Lucas Villa: Dos años sin entregar respuestas a todo un país (Caracol Radio, May 2023, secondary context and quotes). I think the article can be reworked with available sources (identified here, in the article, and otherwise available online) to clarify translations from sources and to more clearly present her activist career over time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like there is more than enough coverage to meet notability guidelines and build a reasonably broad page. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tekin Salimi

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP. Rationale is as follows: Article fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. If you look at the sources you can see there's barely any actual coverage on the person himself. There seems to be more on promoting dao5 which isn't even notable enough to have it own article. And that's assuming you can even use such sources which I don't think is possible since they seem to not be independent. A few are flat out interviews which cannot be considered independent. I'm also getting some WP:PROMO vibes from the article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Canada. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quick review of sources confirms lack of reliability, independence and sigcov, and feels like backdoor advertising for subject's fund. I'd be willing to review WP:THREE if someone presents it. —siro χ o 04:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly not notable. Aintabli (talk) 06:48, 1 July 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 Scream of the Shalka. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shalka Doctor

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

While an incarnation of The Doctor, the Shalka Doctor currently displays no individual notability. I took a look, and while some potential sources exist, they don't seem to be enough to establish this incarnation as a separate article. Thus, this article currently does not meet the GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scream of the Shalka - The sources in the article, and ones I found upon searches, are really discussing the Scream of the Shalka web series in general. There is nothing really demonstrating that the particular version of the Doctor that appeared in it is notable in his own right so that a spinout article is needed, and pretty much all of the information regarding the development and the question of canonicity of the character is already covered in the main article of the series. Rorshacma (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above Dronebogus (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rorshacma. The subject isn't significantly covered in sources, failing the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Doctor Who villains. Star Mississippi 13:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbath (Doctor Who)

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

Article displays no individual notability. A search for sources yields nothing, and the article currently functions off of one primary source. Article currently does not meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to List of Doctor Who villains Dronebogus (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect per nom. Does not meet WP:GNG without third-party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Star Mississippi 13:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cwej

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

While notable in the series itself, article does not display individual notability. A search for sources yields little to no results outside of passing mentions and references. Article currently does not meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters Dronebogus (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without sources this fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. A redirect might be fine. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:41, 2 July 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 Faction Paradox. Star Mississippi 13:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The City of the Saved

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

Fictional location that displays no individual relevance or notability. No sources seem to exist outside of primary ones, and thus the article doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to faction paradox Dronebogus (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph notes mentions by the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and the British Fantasy Society -- not sure why those aren't considered sources other than primary? Phil PH (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was admittedly my bad on misreading those sources. I'm not quite sure how I did that, but my apologies. I can't go back and edit my initial nomination, but in this case, the two sources don't constitute SIGCOV, as I couldn't find anything else related to The City of the Saved. Sorry about the confusion in regards to sourcing, but as it stands, I don't believe it meets SIGCOV or GNG. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Faction Paradox. A simple reading of the Encyclopedia source shows it is not actually about the article subject, while the book review is not about the article subject either. This is solely minor plotcruft, belonging in FANDOM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources appear to be WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and fall short of WP:SIGCOV. A redirect is a valid WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:45, 6 July 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 Faction Paradox. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grandfather Paradox (Doctor Who)

AfDs for this article:

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

While an incarnation of The Doctor, Grandfather Paradox displays little individual notability from The Doctor, and a search shows no sources that display that, either. The article currently does not meet GNG nor SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faction Paradox - Completely non-notable fictional character. The closest thing the article has to a legitimate source is an unauthorized guidebook to the franchise, and searches turn up only the most minimal mentions of the character, in the context of plot summaries of the pieces of media he appeared in. While just doing basic searches seems to turn up a lot of results, almost all of these are discussing the use of the actual grandfather paradox in the franchise, and not this minor character. Rorshacma (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Faction Paradox. Obscure character from an obscure spinoff. Obviously not notable. Dronebogus (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect per Rorschacma. Only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs for this topic exist. Not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:40, 6 July 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 Cartmel Masterplan. Viable AtD Star Mississippi 13:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Other (Doctor Who)

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

While an incarnation of The Doctor, The Other displays no individual notability from the character. All information related to him is already covered by the Cartmel Masterplan article, as well as The Doctor's main article, and no sources I can find demonstrate individual notability. As it stands, the article fails both GNG and SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cartmel Masterplan (which would be an awesome name for a classic Dr. Who storyline) Dronebogus (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV without reliable third party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:39, 2 July 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 The Sarah Jane Adventures. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Jackson (The Sarah Jane Adventures)

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

While a decently notable recurring character in the series itself, the article does not currently demonstrate GNG or SIGCOV. I did a search, but outside of one book reference, I don't see enough potential sources for this article to meet either GNG or SIGCOV, and is currently functioning off of one review as its entire reception section. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Sarah Jane Adventures. Character from a relatively minor spinoff, we are not Tardis Data Core. Dronebogus (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Sarah Jane Adventures. The series is relatively recent and if non-blog and non-fansite coverage was available it would be evident. I can only find one Digitalspy article about this character. Sionk (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There is a consensus that third-party sources for this cannot be found, and this fails WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:39, 6 July 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 The Web Planet. Star Mississippi 13:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vortis (Doctor Who)

AfDs for this article:

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

2nd AfD. Only survived the first one due to having some encyclopedic citations, but all of them are primary sources related to the franchise itself. A search shows no other sources related to the planet. As it stands, the article does not meet GNG or SIGCOV. Given no article for the Planets in Doctor Who exists, its contents should most likely be merged into The Web Planet and the List of Aliens in the series. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Web Planet because shockingly we don’t have a “list of doctor who locations” (and we shouldn’t but considering we’re drowning in Whocruft I’d 100% expect it to exist). Dronebogus (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect per Dronebogus. There are a lot of stub articles without support of reliable third party sources. A redirect to a list, perhaps even whoniverse, might be a solution. But there is nothing independently reliable to WP:PRESERVE from this article.

Shooterwalker (talk) 22:25, 2 July 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 14:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Development Counsellors International

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

Promotional piece with a history of COI editors. Google News does not show any real secondary sourcing, besides the usual mentions in rankings and business listings. No secondary sources are supplied, so that's not helpful. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm having trouble finding much of anything that would qualify towards WP:CORPDEPTH. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:19, 29 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 Triboelectric effect — as an editorial decision, this may be reversed at will, though it is preferable to seek consensus on the talk page beforehand. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contact electrification

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

This article currently consists of material all found in Triboelectric effect, after @Ldm1954:'s overhauls to the pages. The previous material is at [7], and I don't think there's enough material not covered by Triboelectric effect that we can source and salvage. Save for 1 and 2 all sources of that version are primary sources by a small group of people. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, changing to a redirect to Triboelectric effect.

Ldm1954 (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful and redirect to Triboelectric effect. Or keep. This is obviously a verifiable topic and a reasonable search term. The article has been around since 2004, almost 20 years. I'm neutral on whether the material here is better covered in Triboelectric effect or split out here into a separate article, but in any case deletion seems unwarranted. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, looks like I confused AfD's D for discussion instead of deletion. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Merges and/or redirects are usually discussed on the article's talk page. But some consider a redirect a kind of soft deletion, and if that is controversial among editors, it's reasonable to bring it to AfD. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as Talk said MICHAEL 942006 (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Thal. ✗plicit 23:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thal (Doctor Who)

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

Generally not notable fictional species. While they are recurring and factor into the Daleks' history, they are not notable by themselves, with the article being entirely primary sources and not meeting GNG or SIGCOV. Its contents are honestly better off being merged into either the List of Aliens from Doctor Who, or into the article for Skaro. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens Dronebogus (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without third party sources, does not have WP:SIGCOV. Redirect target seems valid. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Ogron. ✗plicit 14:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ogron

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

Generally not notable antagonists. I can't find any sources outside of primary ones and a listicle, and the article already doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens Dronebogus (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Redirect target seems like a reasonable compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a minor fictional race. Does not seem like they even merit a mention on the aliens list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:18, 4 July 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 14:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Werewolf (Doctor Who)

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

Does not pass GNG or SIGCOV. Article discusses two minor and mostly unrelated one off characters, and cites no sources, and it doesn't seem like there are sufficient sources to establish either GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is completely unsourced (and that entire last paragraph is pure WP:OR), and searches on my part have turned up no sources that would indicate that the portrayal of werewolves in the Doctor Who franchise is a notable topic at all. The complete lack of sources and utter non-notability of the topic would also mean that merging to an article like List of werewolves or Werewolf fiction would also be entirely inappropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SYNTH, was it ever made clear “werewolf” was a distinct species or just a trope that was used a few times because Dr. Who will seemingly inevitably use every trope ever at some point? Dronebogus (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It's hard to believe this article exists at all, let alone has remained on Wikipedia for so long. It is entirely predicated on synthesis, and needs to be deleted ASAP. Thanks for bringing attention to it. U-Mos (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Heavy WP:SYNTH - pure WP:ALLPLOT article that fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:32, 1 July 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 14:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aryen Suresh Kute

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

Non notable tech entrepreneur. All three sources cited appeared to be a distributed paid content and an independent search to determine the subject's notability returned negative Noneate (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Noneate (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO, only PR and pay to publish website listings found. I swear we've had someone that looked like him before in AfD... Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (Note that I published the article from AfC, which now seems like a misjudgement to me. Self-trout feels appropriate.) I based my evaluation of the sources on discussions from WP:RSN, also found at WP:NPRSG. Ater looking a little further into them, I agree that these are not the high-quality sources required to establish notability, particularly for a BLP. Since there seems to be a lot of agreement on this, I would suggest a brief discussion at RSN to reclassify these sources for future convenience. @Noneate @Oaktree b what do you think? Actualcpscm (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but someone would have to nominate it or create the discussion there at RSN, I'm not sure how to do that. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PROMO only. I'd suggest returning to draft space, but I don't think this has a six-months chance at improvement. I agree that the sources should be added to a discussion at RSN. UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the refs for easy access: [8] [9] [10] - UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious self-promotion. Deb (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have written plenty of business bios, and this person is clearly insufficiently notable, failing WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources are sponsored. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 07:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFalls short of meeting the notability guidelines mentioned in WP:GNG.AmusingWeasel (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Laroski

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

does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a judge on the Court of International Trade. Also no secondary sources Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Nominator according to WP:NPOL if this individual doesn't meet the WP:GNG they shouldn't be included. I don't see how they meet General Notability. ----VViking_TalkEdits 13:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason Snickers2686 (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:COMMONSENSE. We've always had articles for federal judicial nominees. Why stop now? There would need to be a compelling reason to change this precedent now, and I don't see anyone proposing one. Marquardtika (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent". Let'srun (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone. Most nominees have numerous other reasons they are notable without the announcement, otherwise they wouldn't make it to that point. Even if the nomination fails it receives numerous headlines & therefore the person is still notable.

MIAJudges (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If so then where are these headlines? Let'srun (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" Let'srun (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Keep rationales presented above are totally devoid of any connection to actual notability criteria, and I hope and trust the closing admin ignores them entirely; we do not get to make up fictional notability guidelines to cover the lack of anything better to proffer. Looking over the article, what I see lacking are not only independent, third-party, reliable sources that give the subject the "significant coverage" in multiple sources that the GNG requires in order to meet notability standards, there's nothing that isn't primary. Ravenswing 06:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; agree with Ravenswing in full. If curious about why the other votes exist, the closing admin should see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AFD_and_judges_appointed_by_Joe_Biden. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 14:12, 1 July 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 14:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Pennick

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Lack of valid sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR. UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 29 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. Courcelles (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer L. Hall

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

does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is wp:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge. Also no secondary sources Let'srun (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

these pages are regularly created on the announcement of the nomination by the WH. prior to 6/28/23 there were already 22 district court nominees with existing pages. even if a nominee is not confirmed not confirmed, their failed nomination is still notable and these pages are maintained Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies FedCourts20 (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC) — FedCourts20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Candidates for political office does not confer notability; even a candidate for Congress. By analogy, a nomination for judgeship does not either. Nor does education, experience as a lawyer, or appointment as a magistrate. Kablammo (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does seem TOOSOON. Sources are are from the Gov't or press releases, I can't find much beyond simple announcements of the candidacy. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Nominator and Kablammo, according to WP:NPOL if this individual doesn't meet the WP:GNG they shouldn't be included. I don't see how they meet General Notability. As for "Prior to 6/28/2023 there were already 22 district court nominees..." this is an example of other things exist which is not an argument for keeping the article.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The public needs to know about the president's judge nominees, plus the page would likely be needed to be published if her appointment goes through in 12/23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 14:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She has a Ph.D in Biochemistry and Biophysics. This seems to have helped her in terms of applying scientific knowledge to complicated patent infringement cases as a judge, one such case is in the article and referenced. That is something that should likely be notable in the world of judges. Starlighsky (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add that this judge and fellow presidential nominee Judge Brandy McMillion are both women who have advance degrees in engineering or science, a masters in Industrial Engineering and a Ph.D in Biochemistry, respectively.

Both have published statements in patent law either as having written an article or court judgement, respectively. Their nominations by the president give insight for historians on how the president in deciding on judge candidates. Starlighsky (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason Snickers2686 (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Delaware. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone. Most nominees have numerous other reasons they are notable without the announcement, otherwise they wouldn't make it to that point. Even if the nomination fails it receives numerous headlines & therefore the person is still notable.

MIAJudges (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent". Being a magistrate judge doesn't fulfill this criteria on its own. Let'srun (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. A person is never nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios.

MIAJudges (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not only are the Keep rationales presented above totally devoid of any connection to actual notability criteria, they're frankly BS that I hope the closing admin ignores entirely; we do not get to make up fictional notability guidelines. Looking over the article, what I see lacking are independent, third-party, reliable sources that give the subject the "significant coverage" in multiple sources that the GNG requires in order to meet notability standards. Ravenswing 06:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing

The tone in your response is really unnecessary. You can argue your viewpoint without resorting to calling the views of somebody who differs with yours "BS" & hoping "the closing admin ignores entirely". You wrote on the AFD that you have 19 years at Wikipedia. I would expect somebody with your experience to stick to the matter at hand without those types of shots being thrown. It's really not necessary. Feel free to review the advice you gave another user in the past...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Justinw303

MIAJudges (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my statement; if you're going to invent spurious rationales to Keep, you cannot expect to avoid being called on it. Ravenswing 04:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with a difference of opinion. You are entitled to that. I have a problem with calling other volunteers opinions “BS” & saying they should be ignored. So I stand by your statement you sent to the other user I linked above. You can disagree without being disagreeable & I would expect somebody who touts their 19 years of Wikipedia seniority as much as you do to do so.

Since you took the time to look at my page per your incident comments on the AFD (I still don’t know why) I took the time to look at yours. I see I’m not the first person to mention this to you. Stick to arguing your position & drop the vulgarities & personalizing your attacks & you will be living by the advice you gave I mentioned above.

MIAJudges (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you can disagree without plain making things up. You are repeatedly claiming that spurious grounds are actually represented in notability criteria. You have repeatedly claimed that there has never been a case on Wikipedia where an article on a judicial nominee has been deleted. And you have repeatedly refused to demonstrate links to the former, or any evidence whatsoever of the latter.
This is -- me not being afraid of answering questions -- why I took time to look at your page. It is common practice at ANI to survey the records of involved parties, especially when they're making extraordinary claims. I am not the first, nor the first hundredth, editor to do so. That record was what led some of us to conclude that you were tossing out spurious notability grounds and making wild claims out of inexperience. Your assertion that you are using an alternate account, and that you are actually a veteran editor, takes that excuse out of play. There are few other reasons for your repeated refusal to answer those questions. I struck that because it's gotten a whole lot more serious. You making up headlines to mislead participants in the Garnett AfD [11] is not only reprehensible, that sort of shenanigans is the reason why some of us are careful about checking evidence. You want to explain yourself, and you want to do it fast. Ravenswing 06:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; agree with Ravenswing in full. If curious about why the other votes exist, the closing admin should see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AFD_and_judges_appointed_by_Joe_Biden. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 14:10, 1 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy R. McMillion

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

does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge. Let'srun (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

these pages are regularly created on the announcement of the nomination by the WH. prior to 6/28/23 there were already 22 district court nominees with existing pages. even if a nominee is not confirmed not confirmed, their failed nomination is still notable and these pages are maintained Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies FedCourts20 (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC) — FedCourts20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Agree with Nominator according to WP:NPOL if this individual doesn't meet the WP:GNG they shouldn't be included. I don't see how they meet General Notability. As for "Prior to 6/28/2023 there were already 22 district court nominees..." this is an example of other things exist which is not an argument for keeping the article.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason Snickers2686 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." Let'srun (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What "reference" did you make that you're referring to? Snickers2686 (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone. Most nominees have numerous other reasons they are notable without the announcement, otherwise they wouldn't make it to that point. Even if the nomination fails it receives numerous headlines & therefore the person is still notable.

MIAJudges (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" Let'srun (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. A person is never nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios.

MIAJudges (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is an engineer by training with a Masters Degree in Industrial and Operation management who has had published commentary on a key issue in patent law, plus she has made great efforts with her Pro Bono work to help others...that with her presidential nomination should make her noteworthy a legal professional.

This Assistant United States Attorney and fellow presidential nominee Judge Jennifer L. Hall are both women who have advance degrees in engineering or science, a masters in Industrial Engineering and a Ph.D in Biochemistry, respectively.

Both have published statements in patent law either as having written an article or a court judgement, respectively. Their nominations by the president give insight for historians on how the president in deciding on judge candidates. EDIT of Edit: I noticed the comments below so I want to add Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges

Politicians and judges who have held...sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature

She is a an assistant US Attorney for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, so this should apply.

I do want to add that she is with a degree in industrial engineering who was contributed to intellectual property law scholarship, albeit in a small way. All in all, it is a uniqueness for an assistance US attorney. Starlighsky (talk)

Delete: The Keep rationales presented above are totally devoid of any connection to actual notability criteria, and I hope and trust the closing admin ignores them entirely; we do not get to make up fictional notability guidelines to cover the truth that we've nothing better to proffer. Looking over the article, what I see lacking are independent, third-party, reliable sources that give the subject the "significant coverage" in multiple sources that the GNG requires in order to meet notability standards. Ravenswing 06:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that I saw your comment and added notability criteria in my post above. Starlighsky (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. You didn't. You added a quote from the now-defunct Encarta, mentioned in the lead of WP:BIO. The actual, explicit criterion for WP:JUDGE is "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels."
You will note, as I assume the closing admin will, that having an engineering or a science degree is not listed. You will also note that having a law degree is not listed. You will further note that having published statements in patent law is not listed, and I assure you that there are hundreds and thousands of patent law attorneys that can claim that much. The applicable notability criterion that McMillion would need to meet is having been a judge at the statewide level or higher. As it happens, McMillion is not, and has never been, a judge. I stand on my statement above: that you need to advocate based on the notability criteria in place, not on what you wish the criteria would read if you were the one making the rules. I recognize that you are new on Wikipedia, and invite you to better inform yourself on notability policy and guidelines. Ravenswing 22:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I learned from my mistake corrected the use of the word "judge" with "Assistant United States Attorney" Starlighsky (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the applicable notability as well. Starlighsky (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but appointed officials do not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN either. They haven't held elective office. Ravenswing 02:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Starlighsky: There are literally thousands of AUSA's across the country. Being one doesn't confer notability. Let'srun (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote on Talk about her having cowritten a piece about a really important issue in patent law. I had added the article earlier, but it was deleted. It is a published work. However, it seems have few citations by other authors. That might have been why is was deleted. The article and the Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges would seem like a combination for a Keep. Starlighsky (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; agree with Ravenswing in full. If curious about why the other votes exist, the closing admin should see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AFD_and_judges_appointed_by_Joe_Biden. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 14:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current sourcing is far from reaching WP:GNG, with at most one ref being of the depth, quality and independence we'd expect. WP:NJUDGE, the relevant WP:SNG, is most definitely not reached. I'd also like to "+1" Ravenswing above re: the keep !votes' basis in policy, or rather lack of. And even if NJUDGE was reached, without a GNG pass this would still fall under WP:BIOSPECIAL. -Ljleppan (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Great Siberian Ice March

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No sources provided. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Military, and Russia. UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appear to be plenty of sources in the much longer Russian article. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator failed to assess Russian sources. There are mentions of the insignia even in non-phaleristics works. Kges1901 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the work done by Kges1901. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:18, 3 July 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 14:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Band 'O Gypsys

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

Completely unsourced article and it appears that no such band has existed. Only a discogs entry exists with a 1959 similar band's name. https://www.discogs.com/artist/5161139-Band-O-Gypsys aggarwala2727 (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy support - can't find anything either, looks to me like Speedy Deletion WP:A7 may apply here. Frzzl talk · contribs 16:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah no coverage, I'm gonna tag this for WP:A7 as I think it qualifies. ULPS (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per a request on my Talk page, I've restored the article (I had deleted it per A7) to allow the AfD to resume.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I asked for the AfD to be resumed because I didn’t believe the speedy delete criteria were met, and because there seems to be a passionate fandom for this group, which seemingly has a long history, and has been described by fans as “the godfathers of South African rock” and “legendary” in the non-RS sources I found. WP:BEFORE may have been tricky, because the band named themselves after a ~~Jimmy~~ Jimi Hendrix ~~song~~ album. I found a Google Books source ("History of Contemporary Music of South Africa - Part 1 - Page 7") that states "They play heavy Hendrix - ZZ Top influenced music and have been around for years . Originally , they were known as the Sasons . They live on a farm , outside Johannesburg and are living proof to the maxim - " you never get old with rock ..." [12] I found these YouTube videos [13][14][15] and Facebook posts [16][17]. None of the social media posts are, of course WP:RS, I’m not voting keep, so this isn’t a WP:TMBS argument and as it stands there would be very little choice but to delete the article. I’ve personally never heard of them (they’re from before my time, my parents were Bee Gees and Beatles fans) but editors may be able to dig up something in WP:RS about this group. It’s a long shot given how hard it is to find SA sources, and the low participation but there may be something out there. Also this article should probably be moved to Band O’ Gypsys EDIT: another editor found a number of results when Googling for: "band o' gypsys" site:rock.co.za" EDIT 2: They were interviewed on a national radio station (Radio Today) in 2006 [18]. I found this SA rock legends "family tree" that mentions them [19]. African Music Magazine had a 2004 writeup about an album release that said "they were the family band that ruled the SA heavy metal scene in years gone by"[20] and they seem to have been selected in some sort of fan competition for the Oppikoppi 10th anniversary show [21]. I don't know if these add up to notability or even if these sources qualify as WP:RS, but I'll dig some more - there seems to be an obsession with gypsies in the metal world, which makes it quite hard to filter. EDIT 3: Found this 1998 reference to them on USENET [22]. Again, not a RS, but definitely supports the notion that they existed and were popular. If the article is deleted and recreated, that should at least save it from another WP:SPEEDY. Park3r (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article says they formed in 1962, so they cannot possibly be named after the Jimi (not Jimmy) Hendrix album (not song), which was released in 1970. This indicates the dangers of unreliable Internet chatter about stuff from long ago, and I would bet that both the formation year and the Hendrix connection are wrong. Blogs and YouTube comments are useless for verification purposes. However, I will affirm the last person's point on how the article misspells the band's name, as it should be "Band O' Gypsys" (apostrophe after the O). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Books source I quoted above states that they were founded as The Sasons, and renamed themselves so there isn’t a contradiction there. As for the rest, I’ll defer to you-Hendrix was long before my time. Park3r (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching is tough due to many other things called Band of Gypsys, and the article doesn't help by providing no other info with which to search. I found a MusicBrainz page stating that the singer's name is Peter Pulvenis, so I tried searching for him in conjunction with the band. All I can find is a hodgepodge of contradictions and wispy speculation in unknown blogs and the comments sections for videos. I see formation dates ranging from 1959 to 1965, multiple spellings of their name, and anachronistic allusions to being named "after" the Hendrix album (see above). I also found a Facebook post announcing that Pulvenis died in 2019, making me wonder if the band is truly still active. If the survivors are still playing rock today when they're probably in their mid-80s, good for them but someone in the reliable media is going to have to notice. As an old band, they might have been noticed in pre-Internet books and newspapers, but via targeted searches I can find nothing beyond the brief listing of their existence in the book found by the last commenter. In closing (finally), they really existed, they have directory listings at sites like Discogs.com, and occasional live appearances in recent years generated some basic social media chatter. But if they're so "legendary" in their country they would not be so invisible today. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they’re low profile/“invisible” today isn’t surprising. ~~They almost certainly played for whites-only audiences at segregated venues. Their fans would be quite old (55+) and many would have emigrated from SA or died by now.~~ They seem to have played well into the 2000s, so I'm striking my last sentence. South Africa has experienced massive cultural shifts in recent decades, and a bunch of old white rockers, alive or dead, and no matter how popular they once were (bearing in mind WP:NTEMP) simply wouldn’t have much of a mainstream profile in contemporary South Africa. Park3r (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the problem, because here we need something to write about, in the form of facts that can be reliably verified. I can see that they existed, but this is an encyclopedia and not a list of things that, you know, existed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said otherwise. If no WP:RS that support the relevant inclusion criteria can be found then of course the article should be deleted. Park3r (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this looks like an argument, but you're the one who requested that the speedy delete be overturned in favor of a fuller discussion in which you have largely agreed with deletion anyway. This has turned out to be unnecessarily bureaucratic, and that original speedy delete would not have prevented someone from creating a new article for this band in the future if they could demonstrate reliable sources after their own research. But will that ever happen? You, me, the nominator of the current AfD, and those involved in the original speedy delete have found nothing, and yet here we are still talking about it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy delete nomination was flawed because the person who asked for the Speedy Delete seemed to be confused about the difference between WP:SPEEDY and WP:PROD,[23] and the AFD had already started. You, me, and the original nominator are not the only people who might be able to salvage the article or find sources, and we've already had a new editor try: [24] (and I haven't actually stopped looking yet, see above). I don't think allowing a WP:SPEEDY on flawed grounds to short-circuit the AFD process is a good idea, WP:NOTBURO or not. If, at the end of the AFD, no WP:RS are found (by any editors, not just me or you) then the article should be deleted. I added a Book reference to the article already as well, and that can be evaluated. Park3r (talk) 00:10, 3 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karoline Mehalchick

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

does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge Let'srun (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

these pages are regularly created on the announcement of the nomination by the WH. prior to 6/28/23 there were already 22 district court nominees with existing pages. even if a nominee is not confirmed not confirmed, their failed nomination is still notable and these pages are maintained Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies FedCourts20 (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make a very good point. This information can help historians as well in the future. I good example is with what you mentioned with Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies. Starlighsky (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Nominator according to WP:NPOL if this individual doesn't meet the WP:GNG they shouldn't be included. I don't see how they meet General Notability. As for "Prior to 6/28/2023 there were already 22 district court nominees..." this is an example of other things exist which is not an argument for keeping the article.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason Snickers2686 (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone. Most nominees have numerous other reasons they are notable without the announcement, otherwise they wouldn't make it to that point. Even if the nomination fails it receives numerous headlines & therefore the person is still notable.

MIAJudges (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Deleting Federal judicial nominees makes no sense. There is widespread interest in the Federal judiciary because it affects so many lives with its rulings. A large number of people are interested in this topic and removing this page and others like it needlessly alienate them and benefit no one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:CC4:20F0:6475:DA5A:C113:E6F4 (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possible WP:ATD is draftification until she is officially confirmed, as usual. Curbon7 (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the "as usual" thing to do is let the nominees page remain & not move it to draftification. President Biden has nominated 176 federal judicial nominees. Four of them have been withdrawn yet out of 176, only two had their pages taken down. One was Jorge Rodriguez who was no longer a nominee because the judge he was nominated to replace withdrew their senior status. The other was Tiffany Cartwright who I still to this day do not understand why her page was moved to Draft. But even in her case she has not been confirmed yet & her page has been reinstated. President Trump nominated more then 230 judges & all of them kept their page from the time of nomination. Moving or deleting a federal judicial nominee's page is literally the opposite of "as usual" respectively.
MIAJudges (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" Let'srun (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. A person is never nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios.

MIAJudges (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage in independent sources over the years establishes notability.--Ipigott (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a WP:BLP which needs real WP:SECONDARY coverage. The article on the first block of references anyway, are at best WP:PRIMARY. They are mostly profiles, self-written profiles that don't satisfy any kind of criteria to prove notability. The second block they're is nothing there to prove notability. From the WP:BLP policy it states Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. They are completly missing from this article. The fact that they are missing is another indication that the subject has done nothing of note. scope_creep^Talk 16:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per, earlier commenters, the significant news coverage of her legal career by independent, high-quality sources over the years clearly establishes her notability. (The Scranton newspapers cited are not only metropolitan newspapers that cover a major metropolitan area in Pennsylvania, they have a significant readership across the NEPA/northeastern Pennsylvania region, and produce stories that are frequently syndicated and/or used as source materials by major national news outlets. Mehalchick has been regularly reported on since at least 2006 when Pennsylvania's state bar association named her as its "best young lawyer" of the year. In addition, the position for which she has been nominated by the President of the United States will have the potential power to significantly impact a majority of Pennsylvania residents. According to Ballotpedia's profile of Mehalchick, "The geographic jurisdiction of the Middle District of Pennsylvania consists of approximately one-half of Pennsylvania," which is the fifth-largest state in the United States. - 47thPennVols (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming she will be confirmed though is WP:CRYSTAL. All coverage of her has been either local or puff pieces. Let'srun (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a presidential nominee, with a professorship in her resume. Like the other 2023 presidential judicial nominees Hill and McMillion, she is a women with science background which may assist historians in their analysis President Biden.

I want to add that in terms of her adjunct professorship,Wiikipedia: Notability for Academic Professionals should likely be a part of the notability: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."Starlighsky (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Starlighsky[reply]

Keep; currently satisfies GNG with the local news profile and other sources. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 14:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite obviously passes GNG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies GNG. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:32, 4 July 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 Draftify‎. I participated in the ANI, but the consensus here is clear and I feel comfortable closing it without being "involved". Draftification preserves the history for interested editors to work on this until Hurson is confirmed. Star Mississippi 13:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan A. Hurson

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

does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge Let'srun (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason Snickers2686 (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Until he is confirmed, as usual with these judicial nominations. Currently does not pass WP:GNG, and the anti-OSE argument makes no sense here. Curbon7 (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why? He's already been reported by committee, so it's only a matter of time before he's confirmed. We're going to draftify for a couple months just to move it back into mainspace? Snickers2686 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming he will become a federal judge in a few months is WP:CRYSTAL. He could withdraw his name from consideration, which has happened before, or his nomination could fail in the Senate. Besides that, I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV at the moment to justify a pass via WP:GNG instead. Curbon7 (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. A person is never nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios. MIAJudges (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: The Keep rationales presented above totally devoid of any connection to actual notability criteria. Looking over the article, what I see lacking are independent, third-party, reliable sources that give the subject the "significant coverage" in multiple sources that the GNG requires in order to meet notability standards. He's namedropped, there are press releases, but those do not constitute qualifying coverage. Ravenswing 06:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is a former federal defender with multiple notable cases which are listed. He had his bio included in the announcement from the president which is referenced. He had a hearing in front of the senate judiciary committee & they have voted him favorably to the senate floor. He has been mentioned by numerous media outlets which makes him notable. Tiffany Cartwright’s page was taken down & has been reinstated & she is in the same position as he is, pending a senate vote but hasn’t been confirmed yet. There is no precedent in Wikipedia for moving ir deleting his page.

MIAJudges (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except the previous AfDs on unconfirmed federal judges (for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany M. Cartwright). Curbon7 (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The Cartwright article has been draftified, not "reinstated." And I have asked you before what your evidence is that there is no precedent on Wikipedia for this, and you have declined to answer. (2) There is no presumption of notability on Wikipedia for federal defenders, former or otherwise. (3) WP:NOTINHERITED explicitly states that a subject is not notable just because it is connected to something that is. (4) There is no presumption of notability for having had a hearing before a Senate committee. (5) SIGCOV requires not merely being namedropped in media sources, but that the subject receive coverage in "significant detail," sufficient to write an article on the subject from that source alone. (6) These things have been pointed out to you already, and with the longevity you claim on Wikipedia, there is no reason for you to be ignorant of them. Ravenswing 18:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until confirmed; does not pass WP:GNG as is. If improved, I'm more than happy to change to keep. Precedent doesn't matter. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 13:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until confirmed, or could pass WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until confirmed per Curbon7, Ravenswing, and others. Sal2100 (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as WP:TOOSOON without passing GNG, no rush to create now and can still be improved in draftspace. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Gramin Inter College

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

Unreferenced for 9 years. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thank for nom; we need a lot of such nominations Category:Intermediate colleges in Uttar Pradesh. 5.42.92.163 (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references to support notability or quality. - Indefensible (talk) 16:57, 29 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!} 07:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping Stone Inter College

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thank for nom; we need a lot of such nominations Category:Intermediate colleges in Uttar Pradesh. 5.42.92.163 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to support notability or quality. - Indefensible (talk) 16:59, 29 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!} 07:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brekeke SIP Server

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Skynxnex (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no significant coverage. Artem.G (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Download links and one PR item on a Chinese website are all I find for sourcing. Delete for not meeting GNG or SOFT. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 29 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 14:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artesia, New Mexico infanticide case

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

per WP:NOTNEWS. Alleged crime which has achieved some short-lived media attention but doesn't presently have lasting notability. Doesn't seem to have anything to indicate it's more notable than numerous other alleged criminal acts. Neiltonks (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Neiltonks (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are 25,000 homicides every year in the USA and we don't need an article about all of them. Indeed, we probably need an article about less than 0.1% of them, and certainly not ones like this that have made little to no national news. WP:NOTNEWS. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUSPECT —siro χ o 11:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The BLP issues aside (which I've edited out per BLP:CRIME), this story has very little national coverage and is mostly tabloid at this point. Perhaps it will gain more attention later, but if it does, then it can be brought back into main-space, ideally after AfC. -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. --Bedivere (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to indicate that this crime has notability, and as others have mentioned there are BLP issues regarding the suspect. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a run-of-the-mill incident that resulted in an accusation of murder, and this type of incident is all too commonplace. There is no good reason to keep a Wikipedia article about this. Cullen328 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:Event, "shock news" and viral content are usually not notable unless something gives them enduring significance. It appears there is viral video being reposted by tabloids for it's shock value and ability to generate clicks. Denaar (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete - one event. Not notable enough for inclusion as of today.BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see anything in this article that makes this incident stand out from others like it. Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 2 July 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!} 07:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IPv10

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

The article IPv10 should be deleted for the follow reasons:

The IPv10 proposal is not notable. It's severely aged, unimplemented and highly unlikely to ever be implemented. No major or minor player in the industry has even commented the proposal.
Most trackable discussions are about whether the proposal is technically serious or a hoax.[25][26][27]
The current article fails to discuss the topic. It's rather a copy of various pages in WP. It's not likely to be salvageable.

--Zac67 (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in this edit, Kin kad left the following message

IPv6 has serious drawbacks and is not capable of routing the available Range blocks sizes and most IP addresses are un routable/manageable.

followed by a gigantic table. Because of the giant table and the fact that their edit overwrote Zac67's nomination, I reverted the edit. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The article IPv10 for the follow reasons:

The article is about a notable subject hence the article is notable
Every Theory in this article is notable as it has been Cherry picked out of articles of IPv4 and IPv6.
The article is noteworthy as its addressing a genuine problem with IPv6 and the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses.

comment added by Kin kad (talk • contribs) 09:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I considered tagging WP:A7 because it has "no credible indication of notability", but decided against it because of the topic (it’s not about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event - "web content" would be dubious since at its core it is a software/protocol proposal). That being said, there are no sources, hence no notability, hence zap it.

However, note that even sources that say the proposal is crap could establish notability. For instance this is in-depth and independent of the subject (but probably not reliable, it’s a random company’s blog).

@Kin kad: Please stop discussing the merits of the proposal, those are irrelevant. We are not going to evaluate those for ourselves. If you want the article to be kept, you need to provide sources that are (1) independent of the subject, (2) reliable, and (3) describe it at length. If it’s the best RfC ever but nobody said anything about it, it’s not notable and it does not belong to Wikipedia. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, needs WP:TNT, as the article will need to frame the discussion as a failed/strawman/hoax proposal. However, there seems to be at least one 1 reliable scholarly source with sigcov of a strawman proposal [28]. This one may have sigcov harder to tell [29]. Here's one with just a mention [30] Here are a couple more scholarly sources, but I'm not very confident on reliability [31][32]. May be more appropriate for such an article to be at History of IPv10 given the strange nature of the path this topic has taken. —siro χ o 09:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As near as I can tell, IPv10 is a seven year old draft proposal that has gone nowhere. It is not something that anyone is actively working on or taking seriously or maneuvering towards adoption. There's no evidence that the proposal is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. —scs (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At best, it's an outline proposal by one person from 2017 that didn't gain any traction, and the current article implies (with no sourcing) that it's a practical protocol that could actually be implemented. The first paragraph in particular is nonsense. I've had a look through my archive of networking mailing lists and didn't find any serious discussion of it at all; there are a couple of puzzled mentions of the draft when it was initially published, and only a couple of "do you remember that odd proposal" passing mentions since then. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 29 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. Star Mississippi 02:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Kingsley Publishers

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

This article had tons of puffery in it, and it just feels like it's a corporate profile that was written with significant COI problems. The sources are VERY weak, and these are not within the standards expected to Wiki. As such, this should be deleted in accordance with Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 20:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, England, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh thank you for fixing this for me. I could NOT figure out what part of the code was keyed wrong. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are all fine. This meets WP:GNG. At worse this could be merged into John Murray Press, but I don't see the need. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:NCORP based on existing sources (van Goidsenhoven, Leni, The Bookseller, PW). While a minor edit pass could help it's not even a bad case of WP:PROMO. —siro χ o 07:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, widely & internationally known publisher of books on topics related to autism with numerous notable authors.--TempusTacet (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Probably redirect to Hachette UK, seems to be a sub-unit of that company now. [33] Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that the nominator has characterised the sources in this way. For example, what is wrong with the van Goidsenhoven source? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:52, 2 July 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. Redirecting is an editorial decision that can happen outside of AFD. It’s clear there’s no consensus to use the delete button. Courcelles (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Buscher

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

Article about a mayor, not reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not all "inherently" notable just because they exist -- the notability test for a mayor requires significant coverage that enables us to write a substantive article about her political impact: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But all that's here is two footnotes verifying her declaration of her candidacy and her swearing-in as mayor, which is not enough.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a stronger, more informative and better-referenced article can be written, but just stating and minimally sourcing that she exists as a mayor is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Springfield, Illinois, where the mayor is listed. Djflem (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm ok with the redirect. Likely TOOSOON, all articles simply confirm her win. One post is of the mayoral debate. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added some references. The subject was already an elected official (city treasurer) 8 years prior and had some coverage from that time period. I've no opinion on whether this is enough to keep, thus just leaving thus comment. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The last eight mayors of Springfield, Illinois have articles and only Karen Hasara would be considered notable under the notability guidelines for politicians. There's a reason. Generally, locally significant politicians can pass GNG. Springfield is the state's capital, the central city of a metropolitan statistical area, and has 100,000+ residents. I think this is a case of a need to improve the article rather than delete the article.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:48, 21 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!} 04:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article as now-referenced demonstrates definite notability -- unsurprising since Springfield is the state capital and has a 114,000 population. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Springfield, Illinois - coverage is all WP:ROUTINE coverage of a local politician running for office. The past mayors of the city having pages is not a rationale for keeping an article... There is always going to be routine coverage of local elections. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is routine coverage? WP:SBST, a subsection of our main notability guideline, says this:
"For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage."
WP:SIGCOV (a.k.a. WP:GNG, gives the rationale, which I believe clinches the argument for this article:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
This definitely applies to this mayor -- there is substantial independent coverage of her in multiple reliable sources to support this article.

WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (events). Mayor Buscher is not an event.
Wikipedia:Notability (people) is instead the applicable guideline. Here's what the guideline says at the very top ("Basic criteria"):
"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."
WP:NPOL is the subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that mentions politicians. Referring to local politicians it says:
"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."
The article cites full-length reliable, independent news coverage of this mayor.

These are our guidelines and they're what the closing admin will use to decide this case

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True the mayor isn't an event, but it's been held over and over again at AfD that WP:ROUTINE applies to news coverage of any topic in Wikipedia, and there's no distinguishing news coverage here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, I can only go by what our guidelines say. That's what the closing administrator will use. I suggest if you don't like these guidelines, that you propose a change; you can cite these AfDs you're talking about.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer - I just re-read my comment above and thought it probably sounded snarky. That was not my intent.

When I said that stuff about changing guidelines, I meant that for real - it's a discussion worth having elsewhere (perhaps as an RfC at the Village Pump) to settle this issue (i.e., guidelines don't match actual recent practice). I think it's suboptimal when practice doesn't match our guidelines -- either change the guideline or reinforce its use as already written.

I didn't mean it in the sense of "go away" but it looks that way when I look at it now.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mayors need more than routine local coverage to be kept at AfD. I don't know why I'd need an RfC to change that rule - it's just what we've always done, take a look at some of the archives. SportingFlyer T·C 09:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of mayors as per above - mayors do not have inherent political notability, and there's nothing demonstrating she's received any notability from non-WP:ROUTINE coverage outside the city she's been in charge of, so she doesn't meet WP:GNG. Otherwise every mayor everywhere would be notable, and that's not how we operate. SportingFlyer T·C 09:57, 26 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!} 06:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mayor of Springfield she's as notable as the previous few mayors who have articles. It's also a new article (was red link a few weeks ago) and it can be improved! Ninevolt (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, largely per A. B.'s analysis above. I don't think there is any serious question that the GNG is met here. As to the specific question of AFD precedent, i.e. whether repeated erroneous decisions by AFD participants to delete articles despite a lack of authority to do so under any relevant policy or guideline can, by simple dint of repetition, cause those decisions to no longer be erroneous, I think the question answers itself. -- Visviva (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The Keeps are fairly Weak but there is not strong support for Deletion. This article might make a return visit to AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nkechi Blessing Sunday

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

Doesn't meet notability, despite a plethora of sources, most of which aren't RS. Nswix (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Nigeria. Nswix (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure the City People award gives notability, very flowery text in the article, seems PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The subject meets criterion one of WP:NACTOR. She has had major roles in multiple notable films. She has also been nominated for a couple of notable awards, speficially City People Entertainment Awards and the Best of Nollywood Awards. I think this is enough for a weak keep. She appears to be somewhat of a well-established actress in the Yoruba movie industry. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:20, 20 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!} 05:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the City People award, I'm not sure. But the Nollywood Awards seem notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 22 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!} 06:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject is a well known actresses and brand influencers in Nigeria, with coverage and a strong career. Amaekuma (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major celebrity in Nigeria, frequent subject of press coverage. See https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/nollywood/569156-real-reason-nkechi-blessing-twerked-before-ooni.html?tztc=1 , https://dailypost.ng/2022/06/04/2023-dont-let-god-punish-you-nkechi-blessing-blasts-omokri-over-tinubu-comparison/ , https://leadership.ng/nollywood-actress-nkechi-blessing-visits-ooni-of-ife-sets-tongues-wagging/whatsapp-image-2022-11-22-at-12-49-20/ , https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-61023470 , https://punchng.com/i-wont-keep-my-relationship-off-social-media-nkechi-blessing/ , etc, etc. 668,000 followers on Instagram, --Soman (talk) 21:45, 4 July 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. NYC Guru (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Sweda

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

fails WP:GNG --FMSky (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Bands and musicians and New York. FMSky (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems to pass point 6 of WP:MUSICBIO (as a prominent member of both King Kobra and BulletBoys) if reliable sourcing can be found. Mbdfar (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BulletBoys. I acknowledge that this discussion will be made more complicated by #6 at WP:MUSICBIO, because Sweda has been a member of two notable bands. But note that the first sentence of WP:MUSICBIO says that someone may be notable for any of the following reasons, not definitely notable. Sweda has done little of note outside of those two bands and there is nothing to discuss in his own article except repeats of basic history already described at the bands' articles. As for where to redirect, he was indeed in King Kobra but he receives more coverage as a founding and constant member of the more successful BulletBoys. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thats what i had initially done. But then a single-purpose account, likely Sweda himself, popped up to remove the redirect without an explanation and restore the article --FMSky (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mbdfar (although he did say Weak keep) and WP:HEY. I found three secondary reliable sources to back up most of what was already in the article, one of which goes into much detail about the subject or his family. I also added new sourced information that wasn't there previously, and made things more wiki-friendly. Note that there are many sources mentioning the subject as part of BulletBoys, but those are mostly passing mentions and therefore not really useful for a biography. But I think much of what is included now would not fit well in either of the band articles. StonyBrook _babble 22:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge your efforts to improve the article, but I think it's telling that you were able to find only one source that talks about any of Sweda's works outside of BulletBoys and King Kobra, and that was in his hometown newspaper (Merced). Perhaps not enough to qualify for "significant" coverage at WP:SIGCOV, but I will accept the consensus of others in this discussion. Also, the fact that he has a wife and son is not particularly encyclopedic even though a newspaper said it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 19 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!} 07:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band per above - doesn't seem to pass GNG on his own. SportingFlyer T·C 11:36, 22 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!} 06:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per both WP:MUSICBIO.6 and the sourcing improvements made since listing. Probably still needs another edit pass but a merge would probably not improve the state of the encyclopedia as a whole. —siro χ o 07:58, 29 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ESTREAM

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

probably not a good idea to have an article only sourced to the subject's promotional materials. lettherebedarklight 晚安 10:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight 晚安 10:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've read the article and still have no idea what it's about. Techno news is fine, but this is too long, it doesn't explain what it is or why it's important. The sources are largely technical or legal documents, too complex for the lay person. No attempt to explain what this is or why we need an article about it, only presenting a wall of text and charts about the various specifications. I can't find sourcing about this "thing", so I can't begin to understand what to look for. Oaktree b (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, is there a notability problem here, Lettherebedarklight and Oaktree b, or is the nomination based on the current state of the article and WP:NOT? Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there aren't any reliable, independent sources, so yes, there is a notability problem. lettherebedarklight 晚安 07:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really looked for sources yet but have you looked at Bernstein's notes in the EL section? Even if you don't consider that independent it seems to point towards some conferences. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sourcing is only laws and primary sources. So there is nothing that points towards notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Europe. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SWinxy (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ESTREAM is one of the major crypto competitions, the article is not much different from other articles about crypto competitions, such as NIST hash function competition, Advanced Encryption Standard process, CAESAR Competition etc. Relying on primary sources is a problem, sources should definitely be improved. Clicking on "books" and "scholar" at the top of this discussion gives a lot of additional sources, but for "news" and "google" searches one has to add an additional keyword to filter out unrelated stuff (e.g. adding "cipher" keyword works). ESTREAM is also quite often mentioned in various crypto papers, such as today's NIST report on lightweight crypto. I already added one journal article as a source, it seems to be a good overview, but I have no free time at the moment to go deeper. TheInevitable (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about this one as well, I'm keep on this also. Cursory glance seems to indicate significance in the field, as mentioned above, and there's a whole book about it in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, New Stream Cipher Designs. While I agree that it should be written to be accessible to a less technical audience per NOTGUIDE, that is something to be resolved with editing. I don't really understand what reasoning could lead one to believe the encyclopedia better off without it entirely. This would be speedy keep per SK 1/3 were it not moot. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:07, 18 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!} 04:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FInal relist. Also, please check out the sources that have been added since the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources seem to meet WP:NORG which is probably the most appropriate measure (we don't have a separate WP:NPROJECT), given some of the sources provided. The state of the article is a bit wanting, but I don't think it violates any voice guidelines enough to merit deletion on that grounds. —siro χ o 08:10, 29 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship Association Norway–Albania

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD had minimal participation. A search in gnews for name in English and Norwegian yielded nothing. The last AfD pointed to a library search that yielded hits in Norwegian newspapers which may or may not be reliable sources. If not, this fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Albania, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whilst Eastmain's edit can't function as a reference in the article, the link given ( https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Vennskapssambandet%20Norge-Albania%22&mediatype=aviser ) clearly affirms notability. The organization has 188 hits in Norwegian press during 1970s. For a quick review, this includes articles in mainstream publications (like Aftenposten) solely dedicated to the organization, covering it in detail. This is without going in the contemporary coverage in Albanian-language press, which we can easily presume was plentiful. --Soman (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I also want to bring to the court's attention that the article creator was not notified about the AfD nomination. --Soman (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide WP:THREE examples of WP:SIGCOV? LibStar (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added several references to the article, @LibStar. There is a nonfiction book published in 2017 about the tourist/study trips organised by VNA, a PhD dissertation from 1997 discussing two novels featuring the same trips, there is a journal article debating VNA's opinions, and as others have mentioned, many other articles from mainstream Norwegian newspapers. These friendship organisations were a big thing in the 1970s. Lijil (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Soman above. Also, Aftenposten is a very popular newspaper in Norway. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 22:27, 16 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!} 04:44, 22 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!} 06:23, 29 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 Sam Hyde. While there was good-faith support for keep among some less policy-based arguments, a thorough analysis of sources undemined the independence of some sources with extensive coverage. Several !votes were phrased as "delete" rather than "redirect, but beyond bare statements of preference (and some of the delete !votes don't even do that much with respect to redirection), but no argument was given for why a redirect to the target, which already briefly mentions Fishtank, would not be valid. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fishtank (series)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

BLARed this a bit ago as it didn't appear notable to me. Still doesn't. One source has been added since from Sports Keeda which is regarded as unreliable per its entry at WP:RSP. As I had it before, I still believe this should be redirected to Sam Hyde. Also, it's worth noting that some Sam Hyde fans know about the BLAR and are not happy about it, so that may be an issue to watch out for during these proceedings. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned by one of the ip contributors of the fishtank page, this show has reached millions of watch hours while also amassing an upward of 15k viewers for a 24/7 live camera show. This is no small feat. Even if not too many news articles are covering it, it still has a strong fanbase and thousands of clips. I think this is enough for notability. Redonimo (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seconding what Redonimo said.

AsyarSaronen (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original mod ‘QuietHere’ shouldn’t be a mod, it’s fairly obvious this show wasn’t small, it’s also fairly obvious he/she is being biased and opportunistic when trying to suppress content they don’t align with politically. Abuse of power! The page should stay! :) 2A00:23C4:108:BB01:3969:2B17:3C5:8BAA (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting, by the way, that those viewership numbers are not sourced. They are mentioned in the reception section, but neither of the sources in that section mention those numbers. And viewership numbers alone, regardless of whether they're verifiable, don't necessarily translate to notability if the series isn't getting coverage from independent reliable sources. Wikipedia has rules about this stuff for good reason, and if this series doesn't meet those parameters then it's simply not notable. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Define what is considered "notable"?

Using Sam Hyde as a primary source showing his analytics page, we can see that 57,000 active users are all, at the same time, watching a new medium of livestreaming that has never been accomplished before, during its debut. Furthermore, we can see from subsequent advertisements of the show on the Sam and Nick's Perfect Clips YouTube channel (This is the official YouTube channel) that viewership on the trailer is 333k views, with fishtank.live viewership in the early portions of the show being between 10-24k. If we really want to be pedantic about the whole "notability" situation, we can probably get Jet Neptune or Sam Hyde to publish the analytics numbers as a primary source.

https://twitter.com/wigger/status/1648593968186130435?s=20

(123) Sam Hyde’s Psychotic Reality Show | Fishtank S1 - YouTube

(123) 🔴 Fishtank is LIVE 🐟 50% OFF Weekend - YouTube

I know you might want to say that Twitter isn't a reliable source, but as per Wikipedia:RSP, it is considered generally unreliable UNLESS THE AUTHOR IS A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT. Same thing goes for YouTube. Generally, I know Wikipedia tries to shy away from using YouTube sources, but these are all from the primary source, that being Sam Hyde's official YouTube channel or official Twitter account. Much of the other published content about the show is direct video with voiceover from community members. You should explain how direct recordings of the show itself are not reliable independent sources. 138.88.107.147 (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the definition of notability, look here. I would also like to note that Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says that "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability". When notability is at issue, which it is here, then primary sources like a TV host's self-reported viewership numbers do not contribute to solving that issue. And I don't think subject-matter expertise is relevant here either; that's usually reserved for academic material or art criticism. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find that the article, while somewhat lacking in length and depth due to a short lifespan, should be preserved. It is not too dissimilar from other projects such as The Jerma985 Dollhouse, and barring the claimed controversial nature of the creator (a factor that should not play any significant role in the decision process as per WP:NPOV) I see no reason that undue scrutiny should be placed on this article as opposed to its contemporaries. Furthermore, while the issue of citing primary sources is obvious, it is hard to gauge internal statistics otherwise; in cases where the content is directly hosted on a website as opposed to a streaming service, unless we are to use external sites such as SimilarWeb, we are inherent limited. Although I understand concerns regarding issues of unreliability, I think that the sources provided overall are able to consistently cover the topic, one which is of similar scope and quality when compared to other projects and entries also found in the livestreams category.

DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerma985 Dollhouse's coverage is from a significant list of reliable publications, and it won a notable award. These things are not equal, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not count. And I've never made any claims about the creator or his supposedly controversial nature, nor would I disagree to the irrelevance of that factor.

As for the viewership numbers that respondents keep obsessing over, let me be clear about this: If those numbers aren't being covered by reliable publications, then do they even matter? We have guidelines such as WP:SINGLEVENDOR which make clear that if numbers aren't being reported on then they aren't worth including, and I think the same notion applies here. That the numbers in question here aren't even sourced to begin with makes the whole argument behind them look really weak. They aren't even verified, let alone by a publication which could confirm their value. They're a moot point without that. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You offer no solutions through your assessment, which is quite telling. This was obviously a notable event and show, the YouTube and Twitter numbers undeniably reflect that, it is disingenuous to insinuate otherwise, more so if you consider Sam’s Follower/Subscriber count AND the fact that he is the biggest streamer on YouTube behind Tim Poole. It’s not an alien concept that they could garner a fraction of their total following at any one moment. Let’s be serious for a moment, please. KEEP. 2A00:23C4:108:BB01:9030:FA39:F384:FC4D (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to redirect to Sam Hyde's page, which I stated above. And I've been entirely serious throughout this entire process; I'm explaining how Wikipedia handles these matters, and unfortunately, regardless of your claims, these things need to meet notability requirements. What you're asking is for me to let this be kept based on your claims of Hyde's online success, but that assumption not backed up by reliable sources amounts to original research which is not allowed. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be redirected to Sam's page when it's a separate thing entirely? It's related to Sam and it should be noteworthy on his page, but Fishtank itself deserves its own page because it was a huge group project far bigger than any one individual. The viewers were substantial and their veracity isn't being questioned by anyone here other than you, funny that. Clearly the reason being because you are a self described 'queer' and you are trying to censor a guy who has been censored for years due to some of his more uncouth behaviour. You are doing so because you believe the permeation of his content is bad for society. C00l, whatever, nobody else cares. Everybody here on this comment discussion can see that you're just an irked bozo that doesn't want Sam Hyde to get any more exposure than he has already had. Not that there's anything wrong with that or that it matters in the slightest, but at least make your intentions known - they're very obvious anyway. The page shall stay. 2A00:23C4:108:BB01:853E:6520:DFB0:5F23 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not even QuietHere is denying the numbers, it's just that views are simply completely irrelevant to whether the article should be kept - what Wikipedia cares about is not big numbers, but in-depth reliable sourcing. You are not helping your case by calling into question people for being queer or by calling those who disagree with you "irked bozos". Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Alduin2000 (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They were denying the authenticity of the numbers further up the chain, or at least calling them into question. What is not reliable about fishtank? Nobody is questioning it happened or the veracity of the figures cited, there are hundreds upon hundreds of hours of footage of it on YouTube and Twitter. What exactly isn't reliably sourced within the current article? Queer people do not like Sam Hyde, I should know given I am also Queer, and I do not like Sam Hyde because he is heavily bigoted :) What I do not like is people that clearly have agendas. 2A00:23C4:108:BB01:4261:5382:E201:8470 (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was calling the numbers in question because there's no source backing them up. There is no veracity behind them if someone just wrote 'em down, and given how many apparent Sam Hyde fans this ordeal has attracted, those numbers are even less reliable because they could've been fudged. And since those numbers have been the only thing close to a legitimate point of argument anyone voting keep on this has made (to which WP:BIGNUMBER is very relevant), I've had nothing else to discuss in this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, same argument as DvcDeBlvngis said Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: two new references were added last night, both about Alex Stein but neither mentioning Fishtank or his role in it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is whynow a reliable source? This article by Passionfruit is quite detailed and I think a reliable source. The 4KOB source in the article also seems ok. If the whynow source is reliable then I can see a case for keep, otherwise I'm leaning towards delete. All the other sources in the article seem unreliable (or completely unrelated to the article subject). Also, a lot of keep arguments currently seem to just be BIGNUMBER, it would be better to focus on sourcing. Alduin2000 (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the Passionfruit source while removing the Sportskeeda one, if that helps your judgement. AsyarSaronen (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sam Hyde, where it is mentioned as an alternative to deletion. Of the sources that prima facie could be reliable, they refer to biographical details of one of the contestants, not this show in particular. None of the other sources are reliable (e.g. Sportskeeda is listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Unreliable_sources). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more policy-backed comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SWinxy (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is substantial significance to this article as it is one of the many footnotes in internet entertainment and history, I can tell there is a bias against this due to it being in relation to Sam Hyde and all of the controversies that come with him. I hope we see to look past that and more as just an 'internet show' with much regard for it to have its own page. Second to DvcDeBlvngis.BlackMesaMoment01 (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I still am not seeing any policy-based arguments from those advocating Keep who seem to rely on unverified viewer numbers which are not important for notability on Wikipedia. These personal attacks are unacceptable and if they continue, there will be blocks. Right now, I'm leaning towards a Redirect. By the way, I am not familiar with this series creator and whatever views he might have. If you are new to AFDs, what matters is reliable, independent, secondary sources that establish notability, that's the only "agenda" here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. These sources seem really questionable and there doesn't seem to be enough to support an article. To the extent the series is significant without being Wikipedia-notable, its significance can be discussed in the Sam Hyde article until such time as there is sufficient high-quality independent coverage to support a separate article. -- Visviva (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the canvassing, appears to pass WP:GNG. [34][35][36]. The second source has a bit of an advertorial vibe, but enough negative information is peppered in that I changed my mind about it. There is plenty of WP:SIGCOV. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given the nature of this as a live stream, it could be helpful to examine WP:PERSISTENCE; there hasn't been independent reliable coverage since it ended. —siro χ o 04:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if WP:PERSISTENCE, part of WP:NEVENT, applies to non-events though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a live stream, albeit a long one, so it's at least worth considering. I don't have a strong sense on GNG for this one, because reliability (and to some degree, independence) is a bit difficult to establish on any sources. —siro χ o 06:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. What would make this a non-event? Sounds like a livestream would fit the definition to me.

2. Guidelines aren't just for the very specific things they're designed to target. They all give us a better understanding of Wikipedia generally, and their logic can usually be applied generally because the site is meant to be as consistent as is reasonable.

3. Take note of how WP:PERSISTENCE links directly to WP:SUSTAINED which is part of the main notability page and is saying essentially the same thing. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd consider this to be more like a television show than an event. But great point about WP:SUSTAINED. Sounds like a guideline that could be applied here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:NTV were an actual guideline and not just an essay then that could make more sense. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Almost all of the prior arguments are clear as a bell canvassed, and don't really address the question of whether there is or is not sufficient material about this subject in reliable and independent sources to sustain an article on this subject. Comments which directly address this would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a comment above without a !vote. Per relist I took another look at sources, see table below. Have to say Delete (redirect without merge is fine too) unless more coverage turns up, and coverage has been basically silent the past month per Google news. —siro χ o 09:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WIN.gg has previously been considered as "adequate sourcing" as per Template:Did you know nominations/Lando Norris, with more information on team members here. I would argue it does meet Wikipedia:GNG. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link. Sadly, it makes me even more skeptical of win.gg. They're explicitly tied to esports betting via "WIN Group". Via a different article from that same publication, they seem to partner and promote and promote some folks they cover [37]. No judgement towards the previous editors, as they may have not had such insight at the time. —siro χ o 04:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is unfortunate, however, as far as I am aware there is no established link between Fishtank and the WIN Group. As well, the site has a separate category for livestreaming, which the article in question was filed under. Said category covers a multitude of various streaming culture related topics on various platforms, from Twitch to Kick. While not exactly being the best look, unless a definitive link is established between Fishtank and WIN Group, I think we should not go out and assume that it is a non-independent promotional article. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
KOB.com	interview with contestant	~ local news		✘ No
WIN.gg	? Tied to promotion of esports (see above), unsure how it impacts this discussion at this time.	"WIN.gg is a proud part of Final Boss Entertainment." Can't find anything beyond a defunct game studio. Not enough on team members [38]. Very little discussion on wikipedia [39]. edit to add: Seem to be tied to esports betting and promotion via WIN group (see discussion above)		✘ No
Passionfruit		~ founded by daily dot, no consensus per WP:RSP		~ Partial
POPTOPIC	?	cited two times across Wikipedia including this article		✘ No
whynow	platform for telling artists stories, advertises itself as not independent	?		✘ No
D Magazine	?	?	not about article subject	✘ No
Jewish Journal	?	?	not about article subject	✘ No
Know Your Meme via MSN	~ KYM staff writer	current consensus is to avoid in BLP, at best "no consensus" for their produced videos. As this article has a lot in the way of living people, seems risky		✘ 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}}.

Delete: per WP:SUSTAINED. Some of the sources are arguable in terms of reliability etc. but ultimately not seeing evidence that the vast majority of these sources are reliable and certainly no sustained coverage even if they are. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have a added another source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/what-is-fishtank-live-and-where-can-i-watch-it-sam-hyde-s-online-reality-show-explained/ar-AA1a7rWp. KatoKungLee (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
seems this just an automatically aggregated article from KnowYourMeme, which is not a reliable source considering it's User Generated. AsyarSaronen (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AsyarSaronen worth noting that, as Siroxo has it in their table, it is by a KYM staff writer. WP:KNOWYOURMEME does not mention staff writers and so it's harder to assume that article is as unreliable as the rest of the site. A lot of sources considered unreliable for user-generated content have also started editorial sections which should be assessed individually. Regardless, it's still questionable, as is every other source, so I'm still not convinced and stand by my redirect vote. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable online Big Brother clone; Siroxo's table makes it clear. No redirect. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 5 July 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 06:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaise Kelebona

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

One appearance for the Central African Republic national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There is a general problem of football and American football players being added spuriously. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, at the time this article was created, the subject met the since depreceated NFOOTY guidelines. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:32, 5 July 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 06:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Boutouli

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

One appearance for the Central African Republic national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best I can find is a mention in Taringa, which doesn't look like WP:RS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 4 July 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 06:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of night vision devices

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

List of night vision devices

This list article has a few problems, the most serious of which is that it has no sources. It also does not indicate what the criterion is for inclusion, and so does not satisfy list notability. The criterion isn't having a Wikipedia article, since some of the entries are not linked to articles. This list was moved to draft space by User:BoyTheKingCanDance with the statement that it has no sources (because it has no sources). It was then moved back to article space by its creator without adding sources. This is a contested draftification and so is being sent to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Technology. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the lack of sourcing is a red-herring. Our List of botanists, for example, has no sources, and rightly so: it's a navigational aid to find articles on notable botanists, and all the sourcing required to establish that they are botanists and notable is to be found in the articles on each botanist. The question is whether we really need a navigational aid to find articles on individual night-vision devices. Lists can also be useful to keep articles on the general topic more concise, but since our article on night-vision devices already lists everything, mixed up with the text, this stand-alone list isn't achieving anything particularly useful. Also stand-alone navigational lists shouldn't contain items that don't have a corresponding article. Elemimele (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I generally prefer lists to categories, but this list is not in a good state yet. Either this ends up no different from Category:Night vision devices, or it adds red links, or the non-linked entries need sources so they aren't removed. —siro χ o 09:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per siro's point above. This list already exists as a category and has nothing to add to that category. Night vision devices that are notable will end up in the category, while non-notable devices don't really belong in the list anyway, because they end up running afoul of WP:NOTADVERT and the list specificity requirements.My vote could be swayed under the condition that the list adds something that the category does not while also having strict enough entry requirements to avoid just becoming a list of every night vision device ever invented (or dreamed of, for that matter). --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason for the article to exist. Article creator even moved the article back to the mainspace after another editor moved it to the draft space for incubation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urban Versis 32 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bio Base Europe

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

Puffery galore, doesn’t look to be notable? Cornmazes (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—No SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also for NPOV reasons -- 11 years and no editor has been able to fix. —siro χ o 09:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Economics, Technology, Belgium, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POV to extent of WP:TNT and WP:TOOEARLY. Some coverage exists, especially in Belgium's large HLN daily. It's more than trivial but less than SIGCOV. I strongly recommend cleaning up the articles that link to the AfDd article as well! gidonb (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole article reads like a non-objective promotional piece and was created and written almost entirely by two users which appear to be single-purpose accounts dedicated to this promotional article (Special:Contributions/Hwaegemn_bbepp and Special:Contributions/Lievehoflack and IP editor Special:Contributions/78.21.5.6 have never contributed to any other articles ever). All other accounts contributed and insignificant amount of content. Anton.bersh (talk)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black & White (G.NA album)

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

Couldn't find enough coverage or verify sales/charting mentioned on the artist's page. I guess I can't definitely call this non-notable, but it's at least gonna need some work to meet that burden of proof, and if it can't do that then it should be redirected to G.NA. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and South Korea. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think; but could use some help from a Korean-language speaker. It charted at #22 (debuted there and never went higher); and it got coverage in Korean-language news (e.g., [40]; [41]; [42]) (She's sometimes identified in Korea as "지나" rather than "G.NA", which helps a little on googling.) I think those satisfy a couple of the factors in WP:NALBUM (1. "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works..."; and 2. "has appeared on any country's national music chart").

I'll add the charting; I'm reluctant to add the news coverage, since I don't read Korean and would need to rely on machine translation. TJRC (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the article as it exists says it peaked at #1; but the reference has rotted away, even via the wayback machine, and I cannot independently verify that.

If it indeed was a #1-charting album, it would certainly meet notability; but I'm a little skeptical of that. TJRC (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaon Music Chart was rebranded as Circle Chart last year, so anything that wasn't archived on the Wayback Machine died, but the charts are all available on the Circle Chart website. The album peaked at number 11 [43]. It was the song that topped the chart [44], which ranked at number 22 on the year-end chart [45]. ✗plicit 03:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the title song for the album seems to have been number one for two weeks..but on the show M countdown, which is like a south korean music chart show. Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TJRC's analysis with respect to NALBUM —siro χ o 09:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo and others.Meegvun (talk) 08:29, 30 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. A couple handwave keep comments, but the detailed, NCORP arguments are all on the delete side. Courcelles (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grupo Senda

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely unsourced. UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator hasn't provided an evaluation of the coverage which was discussed in the 2021 AfD, though I would not regard issues around post-accident compensation as contributing to WP:NCORP. There is some more recent coverage of financial restructuring (Telediario, 10 October 2022), a situation which remained unmentioned in the article text. AllyD (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is also worth noting that there have been 6 deleted article instances on es.wiki, culminating in page protection [46]. AllyD (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my comment in the previous AfD. Garuda3 (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I am unconvinced by this brief nomination rationale, and would like to have seen it expanded in discussion here. However, assessing the article topic against the WP:NCORP criteria: the 1994 item announcing a partnership between Greyhound and Grupa Senda seems to me to be a standard notice as per WP:CORPDEPTH, the 2022 coverage of financial restructuring seems to fall under the same category, and I don't think delays in post-crash compensation claims indicate more than "purely local events, incidents, controversies ". AllyD (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:43, 14 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, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have evaluated the following sources vacuumed up from the last AFD, this AFD, and the article: [47][48][49][50][51][52][53], and I think only [54] passes GNG/NCORP (assuming that page 5C has another paragraph talking about Grupo Senda). Due to insufficient WP:SIGCOV, I believe this article does not pass WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. List of companies of Mexico is a possible redirect target, but seems like a stretch, since that article only seems to contain major, notable companies that have articles. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AllyD and Novem Linguae. Seems a pity not to be a able to cover what seems to be a fairly significant bus operator, but there aren't adequate sources to support an article, and there's no suitable existing target for a redirect. To the extent this might arguably be a borderline case, the editorial judgment of ES is worth taking into account as well. -- Visviva (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily a sufficiently notable company with sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References mainly exist in the Spanish language. Some analysts such as EMIS and HR Ratings have produced reports on the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:15, 29 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 06:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xconfig

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

Fails RS, N (NSOFT), V. Not a notable element of the Linux kernel. It has existed since 2005, and has had a sourcing issue since 2009. No reliable significant sources have been found in 18 years, and I doubt any will turn up soon. Some sources do exist that mention xconfig, but it is a passing mention that confirm it exists (EXIST), and it is certainly not the focus of them. WhoAteMyButter (🌴_talk│☀️^contribs) 04:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WhoAteMyButter (🌴_talk│☀️^contribs) 04:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we're gonna have an article for every config and makefile in the Linux kernel, we'll be here for a long time. Considering that even .bashrc, init.el, and .vimrc don't have their own own articles despite being some of the most edited config files in Linux is telling. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:07, 29 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 2022 United States House of Representatives election in Alaska#Republican Party. This seemed like the more preferred redirect target. If you disagree, you can make your argument at WP:RFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Begich III

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

Article about a political candidate, not properly sourced as having a strong notability claim. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. To qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia rather, a candidate must show that either (a) he already has preexisting notability for some other reasons (e.g. having held a different notable office, having established notability in another career independently of politics) that would already have secured inclusion in Wikipedia anyway, or (b) he has a credible claim to being a special case whose candidacy should be seen as uniquely more notable than other people's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance.
But neither of those things is in evidence here: there's no serious claim that he was notable for other reasons besides an unsuccessful election campaign, the writing shades into "campaign brochure" territory by spending entirely too much time on his political opinions, and the referencing consists of a small smattering of the purely run of the mill campaign coverage that every candidate in every election can always show, which hardly constitutes evidence that he's more notable than other candidates.
This previously existed as a redirect to the election he ran in, before being converted into this yesterday -- so no prejudice against restoration of the redirect, but this should be stricken from the edit history first. There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Alaska. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 United States House of Representatives election in Alaska#Republican Party, as it previously was. As he was not elected, he does not qualify for the automatic notability under WP:NPOL, and there's nothing that indicates to me that he is more prominent than any other candidate. None of the sources meet WP:SIGCOV, it's mainly WP:MILL and interviews. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't have time to research sources but I'll note that he got attention in the Lower 48. Even I recognized the name going down the list of todays AfDs. I think you'll find enough sources in the way of general profiles, etc. to build an article. Losing candidates don't normally get articles but nothing rules it out if they meet WP:GNG.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Begich family and list him there per TulsaPoliticsFan. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Losing candidates are not independently notable and should be redirected to the race that they ran in. SportingFlyer T·C 09:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States House of Representatives election in Alaska#Republican Party as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates running for the US House (see WP:POLOUTCOMES. --Enos733 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The article mentions only his candidacy and his grandfather. Bearcat has covered why his candidacy does not meet Wikipedia's thresholds. I will note that being Nick Begich's grandson is irrlevent as Wikipedia:notability is not inherited. Not mentioned in the article, but I do not believe his board membership on the Alaska Policy Forum's board qualifies and his business career would not meet GNG either.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Begich family and list him there. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, want to note he ran in both 2022 United States House of Representatives election in Alaska and 2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:43, 5 July 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!} 05:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Block Party Series

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

Does not meet WP:NEVENT, little to no significant coverage in reliable sources Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 12:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable event/party, no sourcing found since it's been shuttered, nothing turns up before either in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Redirect the music event is notable and should be redirected to Block Party (Nigeria) or Block Party (Music event) since it's a series of mostly Nigeria and Ghana music events. Aside from that; I have updated the article, and done some clean up on the article.--Afí-afeti (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NEVENT Nswix (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~. Non-trivial coverage in 2 large national newspapers, The Guardian Nigeria News and the Daily Trust. Clearly meets our rules. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral leaning to delete based on this comment by User:JoelleJay at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omogboye Saheed Ayodeji. It cites a journalism expert discussing rampant Nigerian journalism corruption. (That said, the Nigerian reporting style during my brief time there was florid even when reporting stuff like the weather.) --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable event with plenty of reliable citations proving notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Avilich (talk) 22:28, 20 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!} 02:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:SIGCOV --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist since a lot of work has been done to this article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:16, 29 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heléne Huby

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

Non-notable business executive. Sources are all about the company raising money, or primary sources. Nothing additional found, beyond linked in and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Mathematics, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources present do not establish notability, and the article seems like an advertisement. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More women need to be included in Wikipedia page. This women is a mathematician, rocket scientist as well space technologist which I'm sure Wikipedia are interested in this kind of people. Google search has shown that there are plenty independent secondary sources that talked about her fully with significant coverage. Moreover, there are numerous scientific search about on space would make her notable.102.91.4.50 (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.91.5.242 (talk) [reply]
Keep Hélène Huby plays for the european space travel a similar role like Elon Musk in USA. --Allexkoch (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Allexkoch, have you got some independant sources that back up that claim? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look here and here its ESA I think its independant. --Allexkoch (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I might be missing something, but neither of those actually mention Huby herself. They mention The Exploration Company, but ESA is certainly not independant when talking about what contacts it signs. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Helene Huby "is" The Exploration Company like Elon Musk "is" Space X. --Allexkoch (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        There's no need for articles for both Helene Huby and The Exploration Company then. Elon Musk is clearly also notable beyond Space X. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced by the sourcing for the moment, but redirecting to The Exploration Company seems like a good WP:ATD. —Kusma (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Exploration Company, as I don't see how this article is sufficiently notable, but the company potentialy is. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ here is another independent source (in german), where the relation between SpaceX The Exploration Company and Helene Huby is "explained". --Allexkoch (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have already made one "keep" vote above. Your source says little about Huby other than "former Airbus manager who currently manages TEC". —Kusma (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If you make Google search about I can find numerous independent secondary reliable sources such as Bloomberg News [[55]],BFM Business, International Austronautical Federation [[56]] and other German Independent sources mainly talking about her which can establish notability.
102.91.5.168 (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of your examples is a secondary reliable source, though. —Kusma (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Remember, each participant can only offer one bolded "vote".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see the German Wikipedia article -- it's much longer and has many more references: de:Hélène Huby

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just looked at a translation of the German article. It's got some puffery. There is one substantial German-language article cited that's about Heléne Huby. I will let others read and decide for themselves whether it's "independent" -- it's a bit puffy (at least after translation). The German article mostly cites articles about The Exploration Company.

I'm still researching but leaning to redirect and merge to Ms. Ruby's company.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The German article survived an AfD just a month ago:

de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/28. April 2023#Hélène Huby (bleibt)

On closer examination, the Germans don't have an independent article on The Exploration Company - it's a redirect to Ms. Ruby's article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to The Exploration Company. Any independent material about Ms. Ruby herself can be put in a section about the CEO. At a later date, there may be more coverage to justify an article just about Ms. Ruby. If someone finds more coverage in reliable sources, please ping me.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There seems to be equal support for Delete, Keep and Merge/Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 29 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 List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabalom Glitz

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor recurring character, who, despite some potential notability, does not currently meet the GNG nor SIGCOV in the article. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of Doctor Who characters unless improved with reception/analysis. Fails GNG as written (WP:FANCRUFT). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Who made an article for like every single reoccurring classic Dr. Who thing ever? Because the dedication is both tragic and impressive, and if active they should really go to Tardis Data Core where they’d fit in perfectly. Dronebogus (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV without reception/analysis. The redirect target is a valid WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:57, 5 July 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!} 07:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Flannelly

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

Highly promotional tone, and only one source. I found only one other reliable source, from Mayo County Council https://www.mayo.ie/en-ie/home-to-mayo-2022/ambassadors/adrian-flannelly -- but that doesn't seem independent. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the creator of this article is Pdflannelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has made only 24 edits, 20 of which are to this article. The username suggests a possible WP:COI. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this is the same person, [57], [58] seem to be coverage of a broadcaster with the same name. I'm unsure if the subject of this wiki article worked in the USA or not. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: even if both are about the same person, it is still a long way from GNG. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more found - initial checks do not support GNG / VER, and this article had dubious content and tone, and possible CoI. Unlike two others today, it is possible that GNG could be met, maybe with offline sources helping, but it is not clear from what is now seen. SeoR (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete primarily because of WP:V. If an editor wants to draftify I would support it, but it would need an interested steward. —siro χ o 02:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 23:08, 29 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bronson

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

There are no sources.. there are dead links.. one of which is archived but it leads to some archive of a personal page that has nothing of substance. This person is not mentioned anywhere. The template for needing more sourced was added 16 years ago.. I think there has been plenty of time to fix the article. There is no fixing it. Nominating for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireandflames2 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a rather prolific journalist/writer, you get many, many hits on columns in Billboard, Variety and a few books he's written, which are quoted by other stories, such as this [59] in American Songwriter. More than likely as notable for being a senior writer at Billboard. Oaktree b (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's also said to be a notable chart journalist in an NPR article. [60] and his "Billboard Book of Number One Charts" seems to have gone through five editions since the 1980s [61], implying it's widely used as a reference work. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Music, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oaktree b above & WP:JOURNALIST.1 —siro χ o 02:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree b and WP:JOURNALIST points 1 (widely cited as noted above), 2 (noted for his apparently unique system for ranking songs by chart performance) and 3 (his book attracted mountains of reviews in its day and still occasionally nets a new one; and although not at all a scholarly book it somehow has 267 citations on Google Scholar). I'm seeing 493 hits for "fred bronson" + billboard on newspapers.com alone, which vary between in-depth reviews of his book, quotes from or discussions of his Billboard column, and stories about his short-lived radio show. Overall this fellow does not seem to have suffered from a shortage of influentiality. -- Visviva (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Could use more sourcing, but Fred Bronson is pretty well known as a writer (Hollywood Reporter author Fred Bronson), multiple years of Billboard Number One Hits [(https://www.amazon.com/s?k=fred+bronson+the+billboard+book+of+number+one+hits&i=digital-text&crid=3KN96IYYWS6PF&sprefix=Fred+Bronson%2Cdigital-text%2C119&ref=nb_sb_ss_fb_3_12 Amazon search (], Star Trek actor ([62]) etc. etc. — Maile (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Batman family enemies#Enemies of lesser renown. There were a couple of suggested redirect targets but this one seemed to come up more frequently. If you have a different opinion, you can bring it to WP:RFD or start a discussion on the redirect talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Plunderer

AfDs for this article:

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

Very minor antagonist in the franchise who has barely shown up past his initial appearance. The previous deletion discussion allowed it to stay due to a few encyclopedic sources, but outside of those few sources, I don't believe it meets GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:51, 29 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. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fancruft. Made one appearance and was seemingly (the article isn’t very clear) retconned out of existence. Run-of-the-WP:MILL dumb early villain who went nowhere. Highly unlikely to have in depth sources. Dronebogus (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect seems appropriate here. List of Batman family enemies#Enemies of lesser renown is close to what was suggested in the previous AfD. —siroχo 01:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is going to search for or even link to the Penny Plunderer, a strong contender for most obscure Batman villain ever. Dronebogus (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I understand. That's fine. It's not generally an argument to delete. See WP:WEDONTNEEDIT —siro χ o 20:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Then call me "nobody", because I actually have. Nearly every article I have seen concerning the Batcave notes this character due to the large penny trophy. (Even Wikipedia: Batcave#Memorabilia.) And wondering who the heck that is, is honestly human nature. This isn't like noting whether Batman ate a ham sandwich on Tuesday. - jc37 00:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Batman family enemies#Enemies of lesser renown - I don't think there is any material worth merging, but he is already included in the target list and redirects are cheap. And honestly, I can see this being at least a plausible search, if only for people hearing the trivia of where Batman's giant penny originated from. Rorshacma (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, the article doesn't go beyond plot summary and catalogue-like "appeared in" listings. There is nothing to indicate this character meets WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: P in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. We have to put his media appearance somewhere. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? We are not an Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information! Dronebogus (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:indiscriminate - To use a quote from The Princess Bride: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - jc37 00:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unconvinced that even the section on this villain in the Batman enemies list would survive a cleanup. Fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/Redirect per above. - Whether the info is in a separate article, or on a list page is immaterial, as long as info about the character is retained. Both List of Batman family enemies#Enemies of lesser renown and List of DC Comics characters: P would be appropriate targets for the info, if the article page is not kept. - jc37 00:51, 3 July 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.