Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 29 July 01 >

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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed expungements of the impeachments of Donald Trump[edit]

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

A mixture of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The second point in NOTNEWS states that "routine news coverage of announcements... while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage". I would consider all of the reporting in reliable sources I could locate about this effort to be coverage of the latest antics of MTG and the divisions between House Republicans. If it turns out to be a nothingburger, which appears likely, it certainly will not pass the WP:10YT. I can see a case for draftifying the article, to be moved back to mainspace if the proposed expungement actually takes place. HouseBlastertalk 22:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I see that there is reporting quoting law professors on the legal theory here (i.e. can you constitutionally "expunge" an impeachment ?), is there any law review article by law professors on the subject of expunging impeachments that would demonstrate notability of the legal theory? I could see a page on the legal theory being notable and lasting, but I'm skeptical on the article as is.
TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the forbes article Georgetown University Professor Joshua Chafetz told Newsweek “an impeachment cannot be expunged because it has effect outside of the House,” noting the House couldn’t technically undo the Senate trial, while George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley told Reuters “it is not like a constitutional DUI. Once you are impeached, you are impeached.” vs. “I am hard-pressed to see why the House is bound by an impeachment passed by a prior one,” seems to indicate some level of scholarly disagreement, but not enough sourcing on its own for notability for the legal theory. I'm tempted to move to Expungement of impeachments in the United States and keep, but not sure enough to !vote yet. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not move, as there is no other instance which I am aware of of this having been previously discussed for impeachments. SecretName101 (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the deletion here would necessitate duplicate sections at the articles describing each of Trump's impeachments. This is a notable-enough proposal (having received backing from two of the House's Republican majority's leading figures in Stefanik and Speaker McCarthy) that it warrants mention on Wikipedia.
I believe it is best described in context that outlines the debate of what it would actually mean, and that having two long duplicate sections on two already-long pages would be un-ideal, hence why a separate article makes clear sense. SecretName101 (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that the Wikipedia:NOTCRYSTAL grounds are pretty weak. This is about a matter for which resolutions have already been introduced. Not very speculative there, and plenty of articles have existed on resolutions and legislation before they were passed (and many that were never passed). Obviously, I am not saying every proposed resolution or bill introduced warrants enough notability: I am only highlighting that NOTCRYSTAL does not really fit this. SecretName101 (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I know, political initiatives don't require more than GNG (like political parties do) and this plainly meets GNG within the first two sources provided. WP:10YT seems mostly to suggest avoiding edit wars in a case like this as consensus can change. The topic exhibited a level of WP:PERSISTENCE at this point, if editors in 10 years determine it doesn't fit it will be removed at that time. As another editor nodded to, NOTCRYSTAL doesn't apply to something that has already happened. Last but not least, WP:NOTPAPER. —siroχo 04:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Properly sourced content that passes GNG. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I commented before, this subject is notable and warrants contextualized mention on the project, which without this stand-alone article would result duplicative lengthy sections within the already-lengthy articles about each impeachment. SecretName101 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Cited sources show sigcov. Oppose move as being a big rescope (although I will create that redirect here as a {{R with possibilities}}). Decided against that per WP:REDYES. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 21:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 21:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:GNG and others. Conyo14 (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an interesting case as it is an example of how Trump’s volume of controversies has numbed the public to the historical rarity of many of them. Here, the discussion pertains to an attempted to expunge a presidential impeachment, which is a significant and rare occurrence in American history. I vote to keep this article because if this vote and congressional debate had taken place with any other U.S. president, there would be no discussion about whether it should be kept as an article. It would be an easy Keep. Same here and I vote to keep this article. Go4thProsper (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question From the article, this effort is currently a couple of resolutions that have been dropped in the hopper by members of congress with no further action. What is the traditional threshold for notability for "normal" congressional resolutions? I ask as I don't follow congressional articles, but I know members of congress drop resolutions all the time. That includes ones they know have no chance in ever passing or will be killed in committee, for reasons as varied as a favor to a constituent/donor or putting on a show for the base. I find it difficult to believe many, if any, of those resolutions have Wikipedia articles, despite the fact they are covered, especially by political commentators. It seems more appropriate to wait to have a standalone article until this effort has progressed to a bill/hearing/comittee passage/vote/whatever is the usual threshold of notability. If there is precedent for even just a resolution having an article, so be it. However, I'm inclined to say no, this content should just be covered as a paragraph in the impeachment articles, not a standalone article, unless this effort advances a couple more steps along the process. Dave (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moabdave This is an effort that has been given support now by the Speaker of the House, which I believe places it above most resolutions in notability. That, combined with the highly unusual nature of what is being proposed in the resolutions, gives it far more notability than most resolutions.
    I'd draw a partial parallel to efforts to impeach Joe Biden, the effort and what is being proposed in the resolutions is more notable than the individual resolutions themselves.
    It also has resulted in some interesting public discussion of the legal implications (or lack thereof) of such a resolution. SecretName101 (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and as for precedent, I'd point to efforts to impeach Donald Trump, efforts to impeach Joe Biden, and efforts to impeach George W. Bush as examples of Wikipedia articles created to cover efforts that (at the time the articles were started) involved resolutions that had not demonstrated any likelihood of passing or even reaching a full floor-vote on adoption. Efforts to impeach Barack Obama did not even have any resolutions to actually impeach. SecretName101 (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Cited sources are easily enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. 'Nuff said. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has significant coverage. Any proposal to expunge a presidential impeachment is unprecendented and therefore far from a "routine announcement" under NOTNEWS, as seen by the amount of news and legal coverage wondering whether it's even possible. Pinguinn 🐧 11:45, 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. ✗plicit 23:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Provinces in Great Kurdistan[edit]

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

First of all, this concept itself is WP:SYNTH. This list has many references, and according to my own experience, the large number of sources often covers up dire problems in a recent article, because the article apparently avoids scrutiny this way. Likewise, the references that really pertain to the purpose of the article (tables listing the provinces) are very questionable. Problems as of this revision include but are not limited to:

  1. Rûdaw is affiliated with certain political parties in the Kurdistan region of Iraq and was not even trusted by other Kurdish parties. Over 10 of the entries on the tables come from Rûdaw, which causes a serious issue regarding reliability. The rest of the sources themselves come from similar news outlets with clear POVs.
  2. This article has a lot of problems with verifiability, for example nowhere on page 344 (ref 13), does Altan Tan say Kurdistan has a Mardin Province. This page and the next encompass the ethnic and religious diversity in Tur Abdin. Encyclopædia Iranica (ref 43) doesn't mention Kurdistan has a Hamadan Province. These constitute just the tip of the iceberg. It is evident that a lot of content will be removed due to failed verification when this article is scrutinized.
  3. This gets funny, absurd, even tragic when the Turkish ministry of internal affairs (ref 15), a web page titled "Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution" (ref 17), Turkish government's mouthpiece Anadolu Agency (ref 18) are used to support that Kurdistan has provinces called Tunceli, Siirt, and Kahramanmaraş, respectively. We don't even need to access these sources, because there is 0.00 chance they would support the content.

Kurdistan is a roughly defined region with no set boundaries. Having such a list is thus not really appropriate. If this list is deemed necessary, there are some good sources on Kurdistan and various other pages, such as Encyclopaedia of Islam, that list provinces considered part of Kurdistan, but this list has so many problems a WP:TNT will save us a tremendous amount of time. Aintabli (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. It makes absolutely no sense to list provinces/governates from four different countries together, none of them Great (sic) Kurdistan. Turkish apples, Iranian oranges, Iraqi grapes and Syrian kumquats? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aintabli, @Clarityfiend, @Spiderone: Hello, you seem to want to delete this section of the list, so I would like to talk to you. So I want to say that you don't seem to believe the sources used in the article, when you have used all the sources yourselves in other articles about Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran.
    As for Rudaw's source, which you say we don't believe because it belongs to Kurdistan, why are Rudaw's sources used in so many places on the English Wikipedia?. We also know that there are four Kurdistan territories in Asia, but you seem to say that they do not exist at all, Why are these things being said?.
    Wikipedia has articles about Turkish Kurds, Iraqi Kurds, Syrian Kurds, and Iranian Kurds. There is also a main article called Greater Kurdistan.
    I want to help you if there is a mistake and fix it together, but I see that you have mentioned several conditions, one of which is that the sources are meaningless. Therefore, I do not see these statements as justified and you have criticized me on several sources in particular, which is not possible.
     Tessla (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:RS, WP:VERIFY. Aintabli (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I might need to explain more, since there's a lot going on in that comment. I'm not sure who "you" is supposed to be directed at in the second sentence, because I have not used much of those sources neither did other experienced editors here put some random references, such as "Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution" (ref 17), to support their addition.
    I am also not the one to answer why Rûdaw is frequently used in Wikipedia. (No one is responsible for that.) Inadequate sources may be found in some parts of Wikipedia, because they may have gone unnoticed. Rûdaw is not directly unreliable for all subjects, though. For such subjects as in this article, we should closely follow WP:NPOV and include a variety of objective and reliable sources. Using the same news site over and over again is not only questionable regarding reliability (expert publications should have been used) but it also causes a Wikipedia article to be dominated by a specific point of view.
    Moreover, this list WP:SYNTHesizes a lot of sources to come up with "provinces" in Kurdistan. These administrative divisions are the creation of unrelated states, and they are not directly related to or congruent with Kurdish-inhabited areas. So, this list doesn't just merit deletion because of sources but due to a chain of multiple problems.
    I have not in any way denied Kurdistan. I have also not regarded the sources as "meaningless" or criticized you personally. Aintabli (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aintabli:Look, my dear friend, you may know that I am not an Englishman, I am a Kurd, so don't complain if I don't understand you well.
    Instead of deleting the article, you can help me fix the problems in it. This is inappropriate. You want to throw all my effort into the dustbin. And I also ask you that we can help each other solve the problems in this article. The sources I have added have already been used on the English Wiki, and I have quoted them for the present article.
    So here we were made aware that the sources are on the English Wiki, so we can’t help but rely on them. (Note:This article cannot be deleted until you and I reach a conclusion), thank you. Tessla (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry that an article you spent time on was nominated for deletion. Most articles nominated for deletion were also the product of hours of work, although imperfect. I tried to work on it a bit, but there is barely much difference with regards to the problems I pointed out above. Aintabli (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aintabli: I have nothing to do with the other articles, sir. I would like to say that the problems in this article must be solved, even if there are many. I can solve it but I don't speak English very well because I am not an English person. Can I briefly describe the problems, please?. Tessla (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems like appropriate content for Kurdistan#Geography, it could be merged and/or reorganized there. I don't think this is appropriate as a stand-alone article though. Reywas92Talk 17:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No it shouldn’t. Inappropriate WP:SYNTH is unacceptable anywhere. Merging into a better article doesn’t average it out with good content. Dronebogus (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no country called “Great Kurdistan” anymore than there’s a Great Romani Nation. Kurds are famously a stateless people, and this seems to be an attempt at WP:righting great wrongs by saying there’s actually a hidden official Kurdistan buried under several existing countries, or something. Dronebogus (talk) 23:58, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daren Usher[edit]

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

Eight international caps for the Bermuda national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:58, 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 redirect‎ to List of Cook Islands international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Tutangata[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Cook Islands international footballers. No indication of notability (two international caps for the Cook Islands national football team). Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, thus failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:41, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bernard Day[edit]

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

Fails WP:JUDGE as per WP:USCJN magistrate judges are not inherently notable and I fail to see how this article crosses that line Let'srun (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I haven't done a source check, but WP:USJUDGE does advise Nominees whose nomination is rejected by the United States Senate are not inherently notable; however, as the rejection of a nominee to such a position is a rare and politically important event, this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability here.
TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Alabama, and Maryland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A magistrate judge who was nominated for a federal judgeship more than likely confers notability. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How, besides your personal opinion? Let'srun (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep, given the unusual circumstances of the Senators from this state commenting on the failure of this nomination. BD2412 T 03:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that normal for failed nominees? See Michael Delaney [1]. I'd argue that notability stemming from failure to be confirmed must be evaluated from coverage of the failure itself (n.b. Arianna Freeman). Home-state senators commenting on failed nominees is to be expected; they'd provided blue slips and have a vested interest in seeing someone from their state confirmed. That's WP:ROUTINE. Iseult Δx parlez moi 06:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether it is to be "expected"; it is something I have rarely actually seen. BD2412 T 16:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is typically the case indeed, since district court judges are recommended in the first place by the home state senators. Thus, it is WP:ROUTINE and doesn't meet any other notability criteria. Let'srun (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nom's POV has caused them to misjudge GNG with regard to this subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 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 redirect‎ to Bionic Commando. Content remains if editors seek to Merge any of it to the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rad Spencer[edit]

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

Zero WP:SIGCOV after doing WP:BEFORE + reception section were only filled with ranking/listicles sources. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 20:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure how much of Spencer's article can be merged to Bionic Commando without it clogging the article. I think what the Bionic Commando has right now is fine for Rad's coverage. As for the article itself, its sources seem pulled from completely random sources more than forming any cohesive form of reception. That being said, I'm not opposed to the article being restored should sources come up in the future, but right now, those sources don't seem to exist. Pokelego999 (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bionic Commando - Yet another fictional character article where trivial mentions in general game reviews and appearances in "Top Ten" style churnalism articles are being disguised as genuine significant coverage from reliable sources. The actual sources do not demonstrate any kind of notability for the character outside of the general notability of the series he is from, so redirecting to that article is the best option here. Rorshacma (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bionic Commando. Relies on listicles and passing mentions. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and lightly merge. There is some coverage, but it's closer to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and not detailed enough for WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:05, 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 Speedy Keep‎. (non-admin closure) Maliner (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oded Hod[edit]

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

I doubt that Oded Hod is notable enough to have his own article.[1] The article currently cites no independent sources.  — Freoh 20:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ WP:PROF
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, faulty nomination. The article states that he holds a named chair, a clear pass of WP:PROF#C5. It is sourced to his university, but WP:PROF states "For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source." Secondary independent sourcing is not needed for this purpose. For that matter he also has many highly cited publications, likely to pass WP:PROF#C1. The nomination makes a WP:VAGUEWAVE at PROF but makes no show of understanding it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep for the reasons articulated in the !vote above and the lack of a valid deletion rationale presented in the nomination in the first place. XOR'easter (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. No valid reason to delete was brought forward. Nomination contradicts WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. As the person who wrote the article in Hebrew, I will say that my decision to write about it resulted from watching his lecture on thermodynamics. I immediately contacted him and wrote to him that I would be happy to write an article about him. We spoke on a Zoom call and he gave me information about himself and scientific articles he had written, and even provided me with his CV. I wrote the entry without payment or compensation, but purely out of appreciation for him. Regarding any doubts about the reliability of the value, I can confirm that all the information about the value has been checked against it. Besides, there is no reason to delete the entry. ארז האורז (talk) 16:29, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rochelle Mercedes Garza[edit]

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

Nominee is not notable under WP:NPOL. Also fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unsuccessful candidate for political office does not create inherent notoriety Let'srun (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I could see an independent basis for meeting WP:GNG if there was more coverage like this about them doing notable things other than running for office. But, as is, she may not be over the line for notability. Heading a major civil rights group in Texas may be notable, but I'm not convinced by the sourcing.
Also, @Let'srun, wanted to let you know NPOL and POLITICIAN are the same policy. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I added a sourced sentence in the lead. She is one of the Commissioners on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. There are only five commissioners on that commission, so it's pretty important and prestigious to be a commissioner the United States Commission on Civil Rights. This means she had to have the background to carry the position. — Maile (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rochelle Mercedes Garza is one of the most notable Texas Democrats in the state. There are numerous references on her page that backs that up. Unfortunately @Let'srun seems to be set out on deleting dozens of pages for some reason & in each case that I have seen, the deletion would go against Wikipedia precedent. Garza's page has more references as to why she is notable then some actual sitting politicians & federal judges have. MIAJudges (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the nominator might be correct in that WP:NPOL and an unsuccessful run for statewide office does not confer inherent notability, but the abundance of coverage of her both as part of her campaign and as part of her other work pushes it over the line for WP:GNG. The fact that she has been nominated but not confirmed is immaterial. Iseult Δx parlez moi 06:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The woman's work in the federal courts seems to have ended with her having a federal requirement named after her. That seems like enough to get her over the hump for me. Valereee (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Her role as Commissioner in the CCR and the coverage garnered by her campaign for AG, regardless of result, make this an easy choice. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly there is significant coverage in reliable sources. Neutralitytalk 18:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her work as a lawyer and her appointment to the United States Commission on Civil Rights clear GNG. I think that some of the election section could be cleaned up, but she is a GNG meeting person who happened to run for office.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Once again, the nom's personal political POV has caused them to misapply notability standards. This nom needs to be trouted, at the very least. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:RS, such as Politico[2], discuss the subject. It is clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. desmay (talk) 02:33, 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 keep‎. The consensus here is to Keep this article although there is some agreement that this article could be in much better shape than it is today. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raiden Shogun[edit]

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

I don't think this topic meets WP:N. A large number of the sources are from a content farm Valnet Inc. and the remainder appear to be WP:GAMECRUFT. I think this topic should be converted back into a redirect to Genshin Impact or List of Genshin Impact characters#Raiden Shogun. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Genshin Impact characters. Super WP:REFBOMB-y and lacks mentions of substance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I feel there are some sources that can provide notability here if properly utilized: [3] published paper focusing on the character, [4] additional published paper examining her design. Looking at some of the sources too I feel they may not be entirely properly cited. While I feel she might be niche, it'd probably be better tagged as cleanup instead of merged for now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there proof these papers were cited by anyone? Simply being a published paper does not immediately indicate notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That feels a bit like moving the goalpost to be honest, Zx. I've never seen that argued before, even by you in all these previous afd's. But to answer your question google doesn't list any citations, just notes the first was published in the book "Sustainable Development in Creative Industries: Embracing Digital Culture for Humanities"--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And would it be enough to just mention this source on one of the two pages I suggested be immediately merged? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not moving the goalpost at all. WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that, one may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not to the exclusion of the others, Zx. It's used as an option to confirm that the source has entered academic discourse as an alternative to the article being published and undergoing peer review, not an absolute requirement by itself. That's not how that works...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think Zx is interpreting this incorrectly. The bullet point "Citation counts" talks about how you can in part use citation count to judge where a paper falls on a scale from a minority view to majority scholarly consensus, which is useful for determining how much weight to give it in a given article - but it does not say that a paper needs to have been cited to be an RS and usable on WP. The point "Reliable scholarship" is more important for this discussion, combined with the old 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 from WP:GNG. For the record, I don't know anything about this character, haven't looked into the specific sourcing situation, and don't know whether this particular article should exist or not - just speaking about WP:SCHOLARSHIP and GNG.--AlexandraIDV 23:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it really seems like a significant misread of the guideline, and I think it'd be valuable for Zx to respond to clear this up. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I suppose I misunderstood the policy, my apologies. I remain the same in my belief that there are not enough sources of significant coverage to pass the WP:GNG criteria, but I do acknowledge that it exists, as demonstrated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I do agree that most of the sources are pretty weak. However, there is nontrivial coverage from The Stanford Daily [5] that examines the character design in detail. Since this video game is not local to California, I believe this student newspaper article can count toward WP:N.
There were several nontrivial commentaries on how the second chapter of the story quest improves the game experience from siliconera and kotaku ([6] and [7]).
Screen Rant is on WP:RSP and has multiple sources in the article. Most of the articles are simple news coverages, but [8] and [9] could be considered nontrivial since the writer provides a plot analysis and reports a real-world event that demonstrates the popularity of this fictional character.
I did manage to find coverage from mainstream media such as Forbes ([10] archived on [11]). It mainly discusses building the character in-game. The article is certainly a nontrivial analysis, though I don't think it will provide much encyclopedic value.
@Nostalgiacn: I'm pinging the creator of the original article. He is active on the Chinese Wikipedia, so hopefully he is able to chime in here. PetraMagna (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are convincing to me - either they discuss the characters and/or plot as a whole, making it more fitting for a list, are from content farm sites, or mention the character Raiden Shogun only in passing. There could very well be significant Chinese sources, but nothing jumps out at me in English as clearly and obviously significant and reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Stanford Daily article has enough coverage as it contains at least a paragraph dedicated to her aesthetics and contains numerous details on her clothing. The Kotaku article also stands strict scrutiny to me: it is about the game's plot, but in every paragraph mentions Raiden Shogun in some way since the plot is centered around her. PetraMagna (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PetraMagna If this does survive, I'm going to suggest it be moved to Raiden (Genshin Impact), as there seems to be three different named being routinely applied towards this character (Ei, Shogun and Baal) in terms of a fictional character for reception, and that would help reduce some confusion.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I wonder how Baal (Genshin Impact) would do. It is a less familiar name for most players, though. PetraMagna (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep it simple and just go with Raiden in this case, since it's a unified name between Shogun and Ei. Baal can be mentioned in the body of the article to explain the significance.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PetraMagna For use of Stanford Daily to establish notability - I disagree per WP:RSSM. But even then it is a presumption of notability, not a guarantee. ScreenRant, GamerRant, other Valnet properties, etc. count as one source if I am not mistaken for the purposes of WP:GNG.
Cleaning all the WP:FANCRUFT made me think that this topic is only notable in the context of Genshin Impact, which is why I believe it is best to have all the information included in the larger discussion of commentary and critique of Genshin characters in general, rather than as its own article. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it now seems that we have two research papers on this topic, one of which is incorporated in the article while the other is not. Stanford daily maybe counts as half of a valid source of notability. Valnet articles such as [12] all count as a single article (there's a lot of fancruft in there, but some articles have significant coverage on, for example, real world events related to the character). Siliconera and kotaku have several articles, some of which made significant coverage, so they can count as one source or two depending on how generous we are. There's a few more sources that other editors mentioned, though they overlap with the existing ones in this reply. The Forbes article is also an edgy one: detailing the character's in-game attributes seems like significant coverage to me, but it's also fancruft.
All in all, if we are very picky, there are 3 sources so far (4 if the second research paper is incorporated in the article) that establish the subject's notability and double that amount if we are permissive. At least SIGCOV is satisfied in my opinion. We can discuss the character's influences outside of the game further. On top of my head, at least the screen rant article linked above talks about real-world events in which the article's subject is a main focus. This article's content would be inappropriate to put inside the list of characters since it does not primarily concern the video game. PetraMagna (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Different standard between Chinese and English wikipedia in notability of fictional elements , e.g. WP:NFICT in Chinese wikipedia is notability guidelines , in English wikipedia is essay. Just follow local guideline , I have not comment in English wikipedia. Nostalgiacn (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In English, its WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut, yeet, add, revise - I sense some refbombs and trivial information written to the article alone, some sources I found to be notable for inclusion, so a cleanup would be suitable. The almighty anomalocaris • chat 13:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though overhaul: A lot of the sources have some reception info and could be cited a lot better, with a lot of the gameplay discussion reduced in light of character/design analysis. SIGCOV is being satisfied at the very least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of the sources are useful, including these [13] [14] [15]. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 02:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:VG/S states of Kotaku, "Editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance", which the 3rd one absolutely falls under. The 1st one, while not on Kotaku is far geekier even than that. The 2nd doesn't even mention Raiden Shogun at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Raiden Ei, Raiden Shogun, and Baal are all used interchangeably to refer to the same (very overcomplicated) character. That's why I suggested above it just be moved to Raiden (Genshin Impact) after this to simplify this confusion.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. Not that I think it counts as WP:SIGCOV regardless. It's certainly worth including in a character list, but not a standalone page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge we already have List of Genshin Impact characters, and the way the article is written right now, it's just a lot of gamecruft. I think the little bit we have in that article is fine.Jaguarnik (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Genshin Impact characters. WP:SIGCOV isn't met by usingWP:TRIVIALMENTIONs about the character's abilities in the middle of a review, or noting the character's appearance in an advertising banner. The WP:REFBOMB is full of off topic information that should be cut, but I can maybe believe that there would be something left over at the end to WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Raiden is in rough shape, but I see the light at the end of the tunnel for her, especially with the sources shown in this AfD thus far. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge. Unable to see not SOLO importance wp:TRICIALMENTOON. Gerblinpete (talk) 08:50, 30 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! 18:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As much as I dislike the game she comes from, she passes GNG. NegativeMP1 (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to have ample GNG-meeting sources. I'm not terribly impressed by the efforts to exclude a source for being "geeky" or the reliance on the WP:FANCRUFT essay or the WP:GAMECRUFT style guide. A merge wouldn't be the worst thing, but there is substantial encyclopedic content here that won't fit into a table row. -- Visviva (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:GNG.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel like there is a lot of unnecessary detail, particularly under Character Story the gameplay descriptions under Reception, but the sourcing otherwise seems fine and the article passes GNG. Mori Calliope fan talk 05:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sourcing is good enough to let her pass the GNG. Hansen SebastianTalk 03:29, 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 keep‎. It looks like the problems that prompted this nomination have been resolved through the help of participants here (thank you!). Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pioneer League team rosters[edit]

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

ParkerLyme has, almost entirely without edit summaries, essentially blanked this page by blanking the templates that it uses. I don't know if there was a discussion that led to this major change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really got rid of the templates and just made them a part of the team’s actual pages. While also making two rosters for Northern Colorado Owlz and Glacier Range Riders.
It seemed like the right thing to do since all the other independent leagues seem to do their rosters that way.
I was just trying to help and I accept any ban or block I may get ParkerLyme (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should have used the edit summaries and that is my bad and I need to be better about it! ParkerLyme (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Lists, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Jonesey95, ParkerLyme's edit was already reverted. Is there a reason you are nominating this page for deletion? RecycledPixels (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ParkerLyme's edits to the roster templates blanked the roster templates, as in this edit (which also went against WP:BRD), causing this article to have no content. It also has no references. Why would we keep an empty page? I would be fine with restoring the contents, but when I attempted to do so, I was reverted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jonesey95: You should be able to transclude the rosters on the team pages to this page instead of nominating for deletion? The football project does that a lot, if I remember properly. SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an option, but since there was no discussion about doing so, and the editor who blanked all of the templates did not do so, we are currently left with a blank article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The rosters are on the team’s Wikipedia pages instead of having their own template. I just was trying to make things easier. The template design itself still exists in each teams wiki page ParkerLyme (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ParkerLyme: @Jonesey95: I've fixed the page using transclusions, as is common elsewhere in the sports project. SportingFlyer T·C 08:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is perfect man!! I did make rosters for the Glacier Range Riders and Northern Colorado Owlz if you don’t mind adding those in there too. ParkerLyme (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. SportingFlyer T·C 12:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I would say this discussion is over because we could delete the templates if they still exist and just leave the list of pioneer rosters page ParkerLyme (talk) 04:50, 25 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! 18:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the original reason for deletion has been overcome - the rosters are now transcluded. SportingFlyer T·C 21:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SportingFlyer and the above discussion. There does not appear to be a basis for deletion here. -- Visviva (talk) 23:31, 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! 21:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Yvon[edit]

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

The last AfD had only 2 participants besides myself. The sole keep !voter used WP:MUSTBESOURCES. I still see no WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, and United Kingdom. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: North Macedonia and Slovenia. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Listed in the [original] Who's Who, which is highly selective. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BASIC (note 6): entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not contribute toward notability. Is it your contention that this does not apply to the Black's Who's Who? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It most certainly does not apply. The original British WW has been a standard and highly respected reference work for well over a century. Those to be included are selected by the editorial staff and neither apply nor pay to be in it. It is unfortunate that the name has been appropriated for self-nominated versions, but the original is not one of these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference, of course, that one does not simply self nominate for it (and, indeed, as Arthur Scargill found out, one cannot nominate to be excluded either), but the entries are largely written by the subjects, such that Ian Duncan Smith's entry used to say he went to the University of Perugia, when in fact he had no degree, and had merely done a short language course there. One of many such inaccuracies and embellishments. But more major criticism comes from the fact that the Black's Who's Who is not based on notability of the subject per se, but largely of rank in the establishment. All baronets are in by dint of birth, whilst many much more notable people get no mention. This page subject appears to have an entry by dint of his rise to a position in the establishment. Per the article, he has been an ambassador. That is enough for his entry in Who's Who. However, his notability is then judged on the notability of ambassadors for Wikipedia articles, and not on their entry in Who's who. Wikipedia's criteria are based on the notability of the subject themself, and not based on Who's Who's selection criteria. So, what of notability of ambassadors? WP:DIPLOMAT says If an individual who is, or was, the "head of mission" meets the criteria in a well-respected essay, an individual biography article can be created. Otherwise, a redirect to another article (such as a list) is sufficient. So, on the basis that this subject has not met WP:ANYBIO, we are looking for such a well respected essay. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all a different issue, of course. You appeared to be questioning whether WW accepted self-nomination or not. I would argue that being selected for WW is an indication of notability (except for people such as baronets only there by dint of birth), although I appreciate that for some bizarre reason Wikipedia, much to the joy of deletionists, has decided that ambassadors are not inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the previous DR. Fails WP:SIRS. No evidence of independent in-depth sources. --TadejM my talk 19:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:SIRS does not apply to biographies. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then WP:NBASIC: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability". --TadejM my talk 23:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think he passes WP:GNG. The Daily Mail article on how he didn't attack his wife isn't enough. SportingFlyer T·C 09:39, 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! 18:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a little reluctantly, but per the above discussion, all we really have for notability is that he was an ambassador, in three different posts. Per the nom. and as per Necrothesp, ambassadors are not inherently notable, and this is confirmed in WP:DIPLOMAT. The page subject is mentioned on pages about these diplomatic missions, which he should be. I have not made a !vote up to now because I instinctively feel that a head of diplomatic mission is as notable or moreso than subjects in some other policy guidelines. On reflection, though, there are a lot of diplomatic missions and these postings are brief. Moreover the real question is whether an encyclopaedic article is possible for the page subject. Regardless of presumed notability or otherwise, that should always be the real standard, or rather, it is what lies behind the standard. There has been no evidence here that this is so; all we have is his diplomatic career and that is encapsulated in the pages about the missions. We have guidelines, and correct interpretation of the guidelines indicates delete here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:46, 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. The title will also be protected against further re-creation due to multiple previous deletions and the apparent abuse of multiple accounts in the process. RL0919 (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moises Lino e Silva[edit]

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

The article is almost entirely based on a single primary source (a book the author published). A Google search yields social media and college profiles, and the book that our article mentions. Doesn't seem to agree with WP:N. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article has been built since 2018. The author is an important academic in his field. He has delivered talks and had his work reviewed in the most prestigious institutions around the world. See some examples below:
Here Moises Lino e Silva can be seen in dialogue with the very famous theorist Jack Halberstam: https://www.socialdifference.columbia.edu/events-1/2023/5/25/queer-aqui-together-in-hard-times-rio-de-janeiro
MASP is the most prestigous museum of art in Brazil: https://masp.org.br/palestras/arte-religiao-e-ecologia-na-floresta-sagrada-de-oxum-nigeria
Talk at the oldest Swedish university: https://www.engagingvulnerability.se/seminars-spring2023/
Talk at the one of the most prestigious universities in the UK: https://www.instagram.com/p/CrA_y4PO8fv/?img_index=1
Otherwise, he is the author of several other works and articles, including some in partnership with Harvard University: https://www.routledge.com/Freedom-in-Practice-Governance-Autonomy-and-Liberty-in-the-Everyday/Silva-Wardle/p/book/9780367873325 2804:7F7:A140:8A63:B0D4:4990:FB2:EC63 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/event/sacred-groves-secret-parks-orisha-landscapes-in-brazil-and-west-africa/
A recent article in the general Brazilian press highlights the importance of his work: https://queer.ig.com.br/2023-04-19/como-e-ser-lgbtqia--nas-favelas.html 2804:7F7:A140:8A63:B0D4:4990:FB2:EC63 (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The University of Chicago Press is among the most prestigious academic presses in the world in anthropology. 2804:7F7:A140:8A63:B0D4:4990:FB2:EC63 (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book in question has been reviewed by DRCLAS/Harvard: https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/a-review-of-minoritarian-liberalism-a-travesti-life-in-a-brazilian-favela/ 2804:7F7:A140:8A63:B0D4:4990:FB2:EC63 (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your arguments are mostly not based on the actual applicable policies and guidelines, namely WP:N and WP:NACADEMIC. I will address them one by one:
  • The age of the article is not relevant for determining notability.
  • YouTube is WP:UGC and not a suitable source for establishing notability. This is also a WP:PRIMARY source.
  • The MASP source does not provide in-depth coverage of the individual, it only lists him as the speaker at an event. Arguably also WP:PRIMARY.
  • The same applies for the EV source.
  • Instagram is WP:UGC and not appropriate for establishing notability.
  • "Partnership with Harvard University" does not establish notability; notability is not WP:INHERITED by association. The same applies to association with the University of Chicago Press.
  • The Queer IG article does not cover Lino e Silva in depth, but only tangentially to its primary topic. See also WP:SIGCOV to read about significant coverage.
  • A book review does not establish notability per se, especially because it is unclear how much editorial oversight and fact-checking they are subject to. However, I agree that this is at least something.
Actualcpscm (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SAPIENS Magazine has published his research: https://www.sapiens.org/culture/minoritarian-liberalism/


Delete. The prevailing sentiment in the comments above seems to be that this is a highly influential scholar, someone who has conducted impactful research. That may be the case, but we seem to be forgetting something important: this impact needs to be demonstrated through coverage in reliable secondary sources. WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 does list academic impact as establishing notability, but it must be "demonstrated by independent reliable sources." None of the sources we have seen so far fulfil this requirement. Intuitively, it does seem that this researcher has received some attention, but that needs to be backed up by reliable sources. As long as the arguments for notability of this subject are based on hypothetical fulfilment of WP:NACADEMIC derived from editor interpretation and opinion, as opposed to independent sources, notability is not established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actualcpscm (talk • contribs)

Keep. This is a noteworthy academic. I wish we could foster younger intellectuals, Latino academics, and from the Global South. Moises Lino e Silva seems to be among them. I wish our community would be more constructive in this case. Instead of deletion, we could work together to make this article stronger. For example, I just found another review of the author's main book:

https://allegralaboratory.net/minoritarian-liberalism-a-travesti-life-in-a-brazilian-favela/
I also found a review of the author's book "Freedom in Practice" in the JRAI (the most prestigious anthropology journal in the UK):
https://www.academia.edu/44956086/Parisolis_Review_of_Freedom_in_Practice_Governance_Autonomy_and_Liberty_in_the_Everyday_ Gdohgsd (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC) — Gdohgsd (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
  • Delete. No pass yet of WP:Prof on tiny GS cites for this adjunt (not full) professor. Maybe in ten years time: Salt until then.Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    This information is not accurate. Professor adjunto is the equivalent of Assistant or Associate Professor with tenure in the USA. Once again, there is a bias here against Latin American scholars. Please, re-consider it. Gdohgsd (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC) — Gdohgsd (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
    The point wasn‘t tenure or lack thereof, but the fact that this isn‘t a full professorship, not to mention a named chair as described in NACADEMIC. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or if kept we must trim the promotional pull quotes and bad sources. Of the listed reviews for Minoritarian Liberalism, Gangwar appears to be a personal blog of a grad student, the Jarrin ReVista review appears reliable, jornalbairrosnet may be reliable, cultura930 appears reliable but not very in-depth, and I'm skeptical of the reliability of queer.ig.com and gay.blog.br. The publisher's own site is definitely not independent or reliable for promotional quotes about its own book. So that's one good review (ReVista) and a lot of maybes or worse. The listed but not linked review for Freedom in Practice is doi:10.1111/1467-9655.13089; it is reliable, but I didn't see any others, and the book is apparently a conference proceedings, co-edited with Huon Wardle, not an authored work. With one in-depth reliable review for one book, and one reliable review for an edited collection, this is below my threshold for WP:AUTHOR notability. The fact that there is only one authored book in play makes it unlikely that we would have enough even if more reviews for those books could be shown reliable and in-depth. And there seems no sign of any other WP:PROF-related notability. If we could find enough reliably published and in-depth reviews of Minoritarian Liberalism (not necessarily in English) we might instead consider having an article on the book and redirecting to it, but I'm not convinced that we have enough yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to say this, but I'm not sure you understand how academia works in terms of notability.

There was a vote from Mles2022 here, but it has been removed following WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Gdohgsd. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a valuable article about a Brazilian author and scholar who has published a single-authored book in English with a leading peer-reviewed academic press in the United States (University of Chicago Press). His book has also been translated into Portuguese. Moises Lino e Silva has also co-edited an anthology published with another leading English-language academic press (Routledge). The Wikipedia article on Moises Lino e Silva is well written and informative and all of the information is accurate. It can be improved by adding sections.--Lawrlafo (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have significantly expanded the article, including biographical information, a description of the author's main book, and a revision of the sources.--Lawrlafo (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Although I don't think there is any dispute about whether the article is accurate, your !vote does not address notability. What notability criterion does the subject pass? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria. The merits of an article on the academic will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow.
      1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
      2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
      3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
      4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
      5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
      6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
      7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
      8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
      Gdohgsd (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC) — Gdohgsd (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
  • I was asking Lawrlafo. But there is no sign whatsoever that the subject meets any of the criteria of NPROF. I am uncertain what Lawrlafo was suggesting for notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject clearly meets the first criteria of NPROF, that being "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." This is demonstrated by the prestige of the peer-reviewed publications (appearing with University of Chicago Press and Routledge), the fact that the most recent book has been translated into Portuguese and the publication covered by the Brazilian press, and by the reviews and media coverage the books have received internationally (United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Brazil), including in peer-reviewed journals. The reviews and media coverage are fully identified in the references of the article.--Lawrlafo (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Peer-review publications are not independent sources for the purposes of establishing notability of their authors. Translation of a book is a weird one to point out; lots of books are translated, it doesn't have to mean anything for notability of their authors. The problem of the reviews is as Russ Woodroofe mentioned: if anything, they establish notability of the specific work they are concerned with, not its author. SIGCOV of a book is not SIGCOV of its author. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have continued to expand the article, integrating sources regarding the visibility the scholar is achieving (for example, appearing on television), being invited to visiting professorship at Harvard University in the Fall 2023, and increasing media coverage of his work. The scholar's impact in Brazil and internationally is based on his publications but also transcends the publications.--Lawrlafo (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comments above. Lawrlafo (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Arguments this meets WP:NPROF criterion 1 are clearly incorrect. Per Russ Woodroofe, the subject might meet WP:NAUTHOR but for lack of evidence of reviews. At this point notability is not established. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Don't let the presence of sockpuppets in this AFD obscure the fact that there has been a lot of changes to this article since it was originally nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per David Eppstein. Also salt. This is the third recreation of this article. It's a obvious case of WP:SPAM.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly contest and fully disagree with the claim that this article is a case of WP:SPAM. As I have indicated above, this is an extremely well researched article on a person who has clearly met WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. Lino e Silva's concept of "minoritarian liberalism" is an important original scholarly contribution as recognized in the endorsements of the book, its publication with a leading peer-reviewed academic press in the United States, the reviews the book has received in numerous independent reliable sources, the print and media interviews with the author, the translation of the book into Portuguese, and the significant media coverage of the translation in Brazil. The visibility and institutional recognition the author has received transcends his first two published books (Freedom in Practice and Minoritarian Liberalism) and now encompasses a new research project on Nigeria. There are no compelling reasons to delete this article on lack of notability for a person who has already made a major impact to the fields of queer studies, Brazilian (and, more broadly, Latin American and Caribbean) studies, and social sciences, as documented in numerous independent reliable sources in English and Portuguese.----Lawrlafo (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Liz that there has been a lot of positive changes to this article since it was originally nominated. It has been completely rewritten using a vast amount of impressive references. It now meets at least two of the necessary conditions for academic notability: 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources; 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:6591:47ED:3074:2E1D:9A28:821C (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC) — 2804:14C:6591:47ED:3074:2E1D:9A28:821C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment The IP repeats claims made above that the subject meets NPROF criterion 1. I remain firm in my view this is not so. Their Scopus profile is here: [17] 8 documents, 20 citations, and an h index of 2 is about as far short of meeting criterion 1 as could be. This is not a notable academic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that the Humanities and Social Sciences do not follow the same logic as the Natural Sciences in terms of notability. A quantitative measure of citations alone is not enough to decide anything. If you need numbers, I just read something remarkable earlier in this thread:Minoritarian Liberalism is available in more than 140 different libraries around the world: https://www.worldcat.org/title/1298388876 and Freedom in Practice is available in 115 different libraries: https://www.worldcat.org/title/964527538 Given everything I've researched so far, this is a notable scholar in the Humanities and Social Sciences. 2804:14C:6591:47ED:25C7:14D1:AF84:30BD (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)— 2804:14C:6591:47ED:25C7:14D1:AF84:30BD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    It is true that the humanities generally have very low citation rates. However, we cannot use the absence of citations as evidence of notability. Instead, in the humanities we usually go by book reviews rather than journal citations. However, as analyzed above, that falls short in this case as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant if the humanities have different citation patterns to the sciences because we always compare like with like: physics with physics, philosophy with philosophy but never physics with philosophy. The subject's citation record is inadequate even for the humanities. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:50, 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. Star Mississippi 02:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Zatout[edit]

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

Sources are mostly profiles, fight announcement and results, I haven't seen any compelling evidence that WP:GNG is met. Lack of independent, in-depth coverage. Subject does not meet criteria for WP:NKICK, fighting for ONE championship many times does not give notability. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - @Lethweimaster that article should be improved not deleted; fighter is ISKA and WBC World Champion, making him notable per WP:KICKGUIDE. Lewolka (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Improve article then, Lewolka. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment"Kickguide" are not an official guidelines, they are to help us members of the Wiki project. These guidelines are erroneous: The WMC title is given loosely at local stadiums in Thailand (Bangla ect). Winning an ISKA title definitely doesn't make a fighter notable as the organization sanctions low level/non notable events all the time. Same for WBC Muaythai who's article was deleted for not being notable enough in 2022 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Boxing Council Muaythai) If you don't like the criteria you should propose we review them officially, I'd gladly help, otherwise article has to pass GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lethweimaster Well I’m not a member of the Kickboxing task force but you are, so if those guidelines are erroneous you’re in a better position to start the change.Lewolka (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is written at WP:KICKGUIDE is simply to guide Wikipedians in finding notable subjects, as if kickboxing athletes have won certain titles, significant coverage is likely to exist. I don't have problem with the official WP:NKICK guidelines. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - He fought for notable world titles: WBC Muaythai, ISKA and ONE Championship Kickboxing (not MMA), which gives him notability. Source Osu .karellian-24 (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have to base our decision on Notability guidelines. Otherwise our discussions have no structure. These titles do not give the subject notability as per WP:NKICK. Lethweimaster (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there it is not full. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Kickboxing_task_force .karellian-24 Also for amateur boxing it is even passing with a NATIONAL championship medal. Or medalist in the world championships, World Games, sometimes even European championships of all the sports... (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link you are referring to is WP:KICKGUIDE, which states: "If one of the following guidelines for kickboxing-related articles is in conflict with a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the later has priority over the former." Lethweimaster (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Note that WP:KICKGUIDE is not an official Wikipedia policy or guideline and thus has no bearing on this discussion. Per WP:NSPORTS, all sport subjects must pass WP:GNG. If multiple sources of SIGCOV are found, ping me and I will be more than happy to change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet GNG.

  1. Tapology stats page Red XN
  2. Sherdog forums post Red XN
  3. "Yahoo News", copied from onefc.com (hosted on FightNewsAsia) Red XN
  4. 404 page from WBC Muay Thai, but non-independent anyway Red XN
  5. onefc.com non-independent Red XN
  6. onefc.com, article repurposed from the earlier onefc.com story copied by #3 Red XN
  7. "AsiaOne", identical to #3 copied from onefc.com Red XN
  8. Sherdog, routine match preview by a contractor for ONE Championship on a site of questionable reliability Red XN
  9. 404 Red XN
  10. Boxemag stats Red XN
  11. Siam Fight Mag, pure Q&A Red XN
  12. Bangkok Post, unattributed copy of The Nation, match preview/interview with opponent, no SIGCOV of Zatout Red XN
  13. 404 page from WBC Muay Thai Red XN
  14. MMA Fighting, passing mention Red XN
  15. MMA.uno 404, likely routine match recap Red XN
  16. mixedmartialarts.com/ONE Championship, non-independent Red XN
  17. ONE Championship, non-independent Red XN
  18. Sport360 retirement announcement, routine fight recap followed by quotes from a press conference, interspersed with content regurgitating or directly plagiarized from the onefc.com profile from #3. onefc.com:

    Zatout, who co-owns Venum Training Camp Thailand in Pattaya, is looking to display the skills that made him a kickboxing and Muay Thai champion in organizations around the globe. [...]
    Zatout got his start in Muay Thai through a group of school friends who were learning at a local gym in his hometown of Noisy-le-Sec, an eastern suburb in Paris, France.

    Sport360:

    Zatout, who co-owns Venum Training Camp Thailand in Pattaya, began training Muay Thai at 10, through a group of school friends who were learning at a local gym in his hometown of Noisy-le-Sec, an eastern suburb in Paris, France.

    Red XN
  19. Wordpress blog Red XN
  20. muaythaitv.com results 404 Red XN. JoelleJay (talk) 22:54, 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! 18:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after review of JoelleJay's analysis above. Nswix (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 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! 22:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damian London[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG, at least from the sources in the article and my own search of Newspapers.com and Google. Article asserts their most famous role was as a recurring character on Babylon 5, but that seems to be about it. Does not pass WP:NACTOR either. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:58, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krasna Polyana[edit]

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

Really doesn't seem notable, but may be expanded from the corresponding Bulgarian article. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 17:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To me, that means it should be important here.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:44, 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 14:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Nicola Bulley[edit]

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

An accidental death by drowning is a non event, not worthy of a WP article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabela84 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The relevant WP guidelines are Wikipedia:Notability (events) and WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The topic (an accidental drowning) fails notability requirements and is eligible to be reconsidered for exclusion. My own line on this is that if Nicola were (a) black, or (b) working class, or (c) male or (d) over 60 years old, then nobody would be interested in her and we would not be having this discussion. That said, parts of the article's text might be absorbed in the Missing white woman syndrome article. Izzy (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're "own line" is entirely that. We can't argue for the deletion of an article based on what might have happened or not happened if the circumstances had been entirely different. We also would not have an article if she had been a homeless drug addict, with no family, who had jumped into the sea at Blackpool and never been missed? 86.187.230.208 (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There might be nothing wrong with mentioning this case at the Missing white woman syndrome article, provided WP:RS sources actually use that description. Otherwise that's just your own personal prejudice? 86.187.165.146 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there was a clear consensus to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Nicola Bulley. Now that we know she died, does that make the event less notable? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those keep votes propped up primary sources that were published while the event was still ongoing. Not only do none of them contribute to GNG, but to say that coverage is "sustained" before the event is even over warrants a chiding at the minimum. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources do not contribute to WP:GNG or WP:SUSTAINED, as they are primary sources from while the event was developing. It's not a historical event worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia as defined by WP:EVENTCRIT. It fails WP:LASTING, it fails WP:GEOSCOPE, and it fails WP:SENSATIONAL. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The constant, sustained, and varied coverage is proof of notability. The use of social media, particularly the misuse of TikTok is interesting. Yes, it was an accidental death. Everything surrounding it makes it more than just that. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Substantial referencing indicating substantial coverage and there was an official enquiry over it. We have featured articles that are over local bank robberies so there's no way this fails notability.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Izzy - why have you voted? You're the creator of this discussion, you can't vote twice. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Exemplo347. I will make sure the closing Administrator doesn't count my vote twice. Thanks for pointing out the matter. Izzy (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even in the last 24 hours, coverage is ongoing in reliable sources (link) proving that event notability guidelines, as linked above, are met. CT55555(talk) 04:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The original incident itself has turned out to be rather more mundane than some wild imaginings had it, but the reactions have made it notable. Very few deaths by drowning draw mention by the PM and LOTO, or trigger two independent investigations into police conduct. Polyphemus Goode (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the simple, sad, drowning has become a much-discussed example of the effects of police and media behaviour - it was being discussed again on the BBC Radio 4 main morning news programme, Today, as I read this discussion. PamD 07:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this case was a widely publicised event. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly has WP:LASTING impact considering reliable sources are still writing at length about it, even as recently as the last 7 days. See The Independent and BBC, the latter was published during this discussion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the volume of enduring RS coverage in national media clearly gives this WP:GNG status. Surprised there was no rationale from the nom as to why this might not be notable, given the previous "keep" result in the previous AFD.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Covered by news and social media for weeks. Analysed to death. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're already getting academic, non-news, sources about this.[22] Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: High volume of coverage from many national and international agencies. Clearly notable. 117.254.34.205 (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per readily available sources and the extent of the interest. gidonb (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sustained coverage, in particular the recent sources highlighted here. Rupples (talk) 04:10, 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 merge‎ to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022. I can't see relisting this discussion a 3rd time in case someone responds to my request so I'll close this with the option to merge article content to the list of mass shootings. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Oakland party shooting[edit]

2022 Oakland party shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable crime, appearing rather routine. Coverage is simply a statement of facts, crime happened, suspects arrested. Oaktree b (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty notable in the East Bay area. Ask any teens or 20s people or parents with teen kids and they most likely heard of this BigBeefShareef (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - honestly, I don't see the notability of the event. Most of the sustained coverage comes from more local sources and there's no real impact outside of a few arrests.
Now this can be Redirected or Merged into the List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 article as that mentions the mass shooting. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the possibility of redirecting or merging some of the article content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 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. given the source supplied in this discussion along with existing article sources. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suppachai Srivijit[edit]

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

This individual falls short of meeting the notability criteria as defined in WP:GNG due to a significant dearth of substantial independent coverage from reputable sources.. Despite my search efforts, I was unable to locate substantial information. It is possible that there may be more coverage in Thai-language newspapers. I kindly request any editors from Thailand to provide sources that could assist in establishing the individual's notability. Based on the currently cited sources, it is evident that the individual falls significantly short of meeting the required notability standards. AmusingWeasel (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google news search of him [27] Those are considered reliable news sources recognized by Google (newspapers, magazines, TV channels). As you can see from the date of each news, he appear in news pretty much weekly or monthly, and this went far back for a decade or two. He is the top celeb agent in Thailand. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 09:28, 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 23:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CounterStrike Table Tennis[edit]

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

Sources are not reliable to show notability under WP NCORP rule Edit.pdf (talk) 10:26, 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! 11:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two news items in Gnews, a PR piece and the Indianapolis Business newspaper thing. I'm not seeing extensive coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let'srun (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. does not meet WP:NCORP Note that aside from the import genius entry, which is not sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH, the sources are not independent of the subject. Two are even rewrites of the same thing [28][29], casting doubt on the reliability of either. —siroχo 18:32, 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. I see a consensus to Keep here among participating editors, especially given all of the work that has been done on the article since its nomination. I hope all of the sources mentioned in this discussion have found their way into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Cherkasova[edit]

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

NN journalist and ecologist. All assertions of notability are of "worked for/on X" except for a single event, so falls under WP:BIO1E. UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://greencleanguide.com/maria-cherkasova-ecologist-and-journalist/ Yes No generic content farm ~ generic biography ✘ No
http://www.seu.ru/members/cnep.htm No published by the organisation which Cherkasova allegedly co-founded Yes Yes ✘ No
https://ecologyofrussia.ru/zhenshchiny-za-prirodu/ Yes No generic content farm No only one short biography from a list ✘ No
http://zmdosie.ru/chitalnyj-zal-zm/rekomenduem/819-posledstviya-raketno-kosmicheskoj Yes ? No passing mention ✘ No
https://www.svoboda.org/a/24197748.html Yes Yes the only actually reliable source I could find No one short quote from Cherkassova ✘ 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}}.
All the best, Akakievich (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually disagree about Ecology of Russia, at the bottom of the page they say it is an independent media. I do not see why it is not reliable. It is indeed one bio out of the list, but I was able to confirm most of the text of the article using it. In addition, it talks about awards, and, indeed, I was able to confirm one of the awards by the UN press release (now all added to the article). I am leaning keep. Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was uncharitable in my assessment, I just don't think a content farm that is unlikely to verify anything they print is particularly reliable. All the same, WP:BASIC requires at least two independent, reliable sources, so this alone does not make Cherkasova notable. Akakievich (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she is also one of the people profiled in the 1998 book Women pioneers for the environment, which is now listed in the Further Reading section of the article. There are 6 pages of details on Cherkasova in that book. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per given the above book as well as [31][32] which both have sigcov. Additionally, they've had some success in academic publication themselves: [33] has 91 citations on google scholar, [34] has 1. Seem to be more, but I'm satisfied. —siroχo 19:01, 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 redirect‎ to Rock 'N' Roll Comics. ✗plicit 14:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles Experience[edit]

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

Poorly source article about a comic book of questionable notability. UtherSRG (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 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. ✗plicit 23:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eastwick College[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL, draft article moved by COI editor to mainspace. Greenman (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While it may be possible to pull together an article at some point, this is definitely not it, and the history prior to draftifying is not promising. At this point, the sources are not sufficient, the article reads like marketing copy, and the COI mentioned in nom seems to be confirmed. —siroχo 09:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and New Jersey. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 23 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 14:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sorry to say but my attempts to find appropriate supporting materials to cite has been generally unsuccessful. One thing is that the mutliple entities are rarely considered together as a single unit. Further, the 'main campus' and the Hackensack colleges are really separate and distinct things - the former being a nursing college, the second a college of mortuary studies. I'm not saying that one could create a persistent article on either of these, though. Generally lacking in coverage overall. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:18, 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. Minimal participation and no consensus after two relists, and the article is not eligible for soft deletion. RL0919 (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shoreditch TV[edit]

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

TV station which does not have evidence of notability; a search has not turned up any meaningful coverage. It is not clear that the BBC reference cited in the article even relates to this station. Previously PRODded. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apparently created this article however I have no knowledge of doing so! Then again it was 17 years ago. If you search for '"shoreditch tv" cctv' you do see some relevant articles from other outlets so apparently I didn't fabricate the entire thing. Dan Huby (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the avoidance of doubt I am certainly not accusing you of fabricating anything, merely stating that the TV station described does not appear to meet our notability requirements to have an article. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 20 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 13:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 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. ✗plicit 14:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Broutin[edit]

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

Borderline on notability. Might be notable, but I think not. UtherSRG (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hard to say. I found a copy of the first reference (Vigeant, Arsène : Un Maître d'Armes sous la Restauration - Paris - 1883) here: [35], but could only find one reference to "Broutin", and it looks like a passing reference. I couldn't locate the other general references. The French and Spanish Wikipedias have a couple more references, which I also couldn't locate. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find references to him in the BnF Gallica database, nor in Gscholar or Gbooks. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 16 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 13:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think the references that have been added to the article are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless we can actually verify that any of the sources contain SIGCOV, the article shouldn't be kept... JoelleJay (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that any of the sources contain significant coverage. Avilich (talk) 14:14, 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 keep‎. There is a general sentiment that separate nominations may be more productive. ✗plicit 14:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Marie Sweet[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL with little in the way of secondary sources. Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees who withdraw, die, are withdrawn by the President prior to a vote on the nomination, or are returned by the United States Senate without being processed are not inherently notable. If a withdrawal from consideration is prompted by conflict over the nomination, which makes it tantamount to a defeat in the Senate, such a nominee is evaluated as though they had been rejected by the Senate." Let'srun (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [they each fail WP:USCJN and WP:NPOL as previously described]:[reply]

Terrence J. Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dax Eric López (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Inga S. Bernstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jennifer Klemetsrud Puhl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kathleen M. O'Sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rick Richmond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jeremy B. Rosen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Steve Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep – Steve Kim, per BD2412: That this subject was unsuccessfully nominated for a District Court judgeship likely lifts their notability over the threshold for inclusion. Frankly, if a state court judge or magistrate has been nominated, how does that not confer notability? Snickers2686 (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as collectively nominated. I have some individual issues with some of these. One was (unsuccessfully) nominated to a U.S. Court of Appeals rather than a district court, which raises the stakes higher. One was nominated multiple times by the same president, with the nomination resubmitted after failing the first time. I would consider these nominations to be separate events for purposes of gauging notability. Another was nominated by one president and then declared, but not submitted, as a nominee by the next president, which is also a highly unusual and noteworthy circumstance. BD2412 T 04:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above, and per the nom's clearly political motivation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it political when the nominations were nominees from both Republican and Democratic presidents? Let'srun (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am quite curious @Beyond My Ken Let'srun (talk) 12:12, 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 14:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jadder Dantas[edit]

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

One of a number of similar stubs created in 2012 that probably didn't pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports) even as it stood then. Language is an issue of course, but in neither the Italian nor Azeri wikipedias is there any sourcing either, and Google doesn't show anything but the 2012 national team. I suppose a redirect to UEFA_Futsal_Euro_2012_squads#_Azerbaijan wouldn't be amiss, but there's no info about him there either than his name. I'm not doing a mass nom as some are notable, but seeing how this closes could be a useful barometer for others who don't appear to be. Star Mississippi 13:38, 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 Speedy delete‎. (non-admin closure) 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 18:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bedtime Prompts[edit]

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

Self-promotion of a non-notable product. Fram (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a genuine publication sold on Amazon. I have Copyright and ISBN number. The product is a finalist for Innovation Awards 2023. Pallaviprasadgv (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that there is no critical discussion of the book, published book reviews or articles about the book. Oaktree b (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for PROMO. No coverage of any kind in RS, barely any hits in Gsearch at all. Non-notable book. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A new product needs time for PR. But it still remains a product, just like books? Pallaviprasadgv (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do we do A7 for books? (guess not) Wikipedia isn't a free place to advertise, please do so elsewhere. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an advertisement or promotion. This is a real self-help tool. I have complied my 15 years of expertise into a pocket-size power hack. This may not be a book. But it is a publication. Pallaviprasadgv (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant self-promotion and the publication is not notable by any stretch of the imagination. Should have been speedied. Deb (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and include CSD template. This is blatant promotion, and the creator deleted the previous CSD template before it got reviewed. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 16:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. this article got recreated only 13 minutes after it god CSD deleted. I'm definitely reporting the account. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 16:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am all for self-help, but it's pushing it too far if you just blatantly advertise your product when it's against the guidelines. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 16:59, 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. ✗plicit 14:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

W27DH-D[edit]

W27DH-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merging W27DH-D with the Innovate list of stations is like removing WUCU-LD! After this page closes, it's a delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMarGlines (talk • contribs) 13:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The deletion rationale makes little sense, but it's an obvious GNG fail out of the 140-station failed HC2 stations AfD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, Sammi Brie. BMarGlines (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A TV station that was likely not even viewed outside testers in its only time on the air and never originated any local programming. It's a failed test station among many of HC2's licenses. Nate • (chatter) 00:06, 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 Hori7on. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyler Chua[edit]

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

Moved out of AfC after several declines. Suggest redirect to Dream Maker (TV program) not deletion as it's a viable ATD where Chua doesn't meet musical notability, but that's going to be controversial based on the edit history, so bringing it here for discussion. Star Mississippi 13:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect instead to Hori7on; Google search results indicate he is more known as a member of the group, rather than a contestant of the show.
EdrianJustine (talk) 17:11, 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 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 14:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Saunders[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. NN association footballer and coach. Fails WP:NSPORT. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 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. ✗plicit 14:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S-RAMP[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Seems to only have passing mentions, other than "how to"s. UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 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 redirect‎ to Asian Football Confederation#Clubs. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 AFC Third level Club Championship[edit]

2024–25 AFC Third level Club Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Way premature. Name of competition, teams, ... are all not known yet. Should again be redirected to Asian Football Confederation#Clubs with one or two lines there about this. Fram (talk) 12:51, 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. ✗plicit 14:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julia McNamara[edit]

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

The article uses no sources about the character (the only source is about the actors' paycheck, and it doesn't even prove the part sourced) and a quick Google search gives little results about the character that proves her notability. Spinixster (chat!) 12:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find any sources, bar potentially one book, which is nowhere near enough to constitute a whole article. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:28, 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. ✗plicit 14:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Annie McNamara[edit]

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

The article has no sources, and a quick Google search gives little sources to show notability. Spinixster (chat!) 11:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find any sources for this character, either. Given the lack of sources to begin with, definitely doesn't pass GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:30, 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. ✗plicit 14:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Moore[edit]

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

The article has no sources, and a quick Google search gives little sources to show notability. Spinixster (chat!) 11:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find any sources either, and as there are no sources to begin with, article doesn't seem to meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:31, 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. ✗plicit 14:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt McNamara[edit]

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

The article has no sources, and a quick Google search gives little sources to show notability. Spinixster (chat!) 11:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also couldn't locate any sources for this guy, and given the article already lacks sources, it doesn't seem to meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:32, 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. ✗plicit 14:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marlowe Sawyer[edit]

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

Sources used in this article are either listicles or episodes, and a quick Google search gives little results that show notability. Spinixster (chat!) 11:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find any sources for this guy, and the article already doesn't illustrate GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:34, 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. ✗plicit 14:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Santiago[edit]

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

There are no sources to demonstrate notability and Google gives little sources about the character. Spinixster (chat!) 11:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The character seems rather minor and I couldn't find anything to illustrate that it passed GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:35, 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. ✗plicit 14:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shanti Deep English School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Maliner (talk) 11:33, 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. ✗plicit 14:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Temple Academy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Maliner (talk) 11:27, 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. ✗plicit 14:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Husejin Konavic[edit]

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

Unsourced, one of the oldest orphans on Wikipedia, and article contains only 2 paragraphs of content. Fails WP:GNG 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 10:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete I can't find a source for this guy. If the bio is correct, he meets WP:NPOL as a member of the Yugoslavia legislature. However, we still need to be able to WP:verify that. The website for the Archives of Yugoslavia appears to be dead. Anyone know where to look for information on lawmakers from the former Yugoslavia? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Vote changed TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. My grandfather was a major diplomat and member of the SKJ, so he might have known that, but he's been dead for years. The website's also been down since June 8, according to the Internet Archive.
P.S. This page is a copyright infringement. The entire contents of the page are from another website. WHICH JUST SO HAPPENS TO BE ON THE BLACKLIST. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 16:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And not even the site the G12 tag refers to (HowOld [dot] co) has him in their listings. Is there something I missed in the meantime? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does, I have the link. (HowOld [dot] co/person/husejin-konavic/biography) 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 17:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HowOld is a web scraper and copied the contents from Wikipedia. It says so right on the page. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 17:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which, upon further inspection, clearly seems to be copying from WP as a mirror (with attribution) rather than the other way around.
On an additional note, this is the only remaining Wikimedia contribution from Frmtr123 (talk · contribs) (from way back in mid-January + mid-June 2012). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the verge of delete per copyvio/sourcing concerns respectively raised by Jalapeño and TPF (unless Wikipedians from Serbia and Montenegro chime in and try their best to give us a hand). For a late Eastern European politician of such purported stature, not even the barest amount of mention/attestation at the usual databases (GBooks/GScholar/PQ/EBSCO/Gale/JSTOR/newspaper outlets) is around to show for it. Nothing through basic Googling outside WP, a couple of mirrors, and a few more lesser sites. Sorry, folks—I honestly tried my best. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing verifiability thought I am leaning towards hoax on this. It is simply not believable that a government cabinet minister (minister of education) has no coverage about him whatsoever. The article has never had any sourcing that I can see. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Appears to be a hoax. No person like this seems to have existed; the article purports he was minister of education, but he does not show up in any issue of an annual publication like The Statesman's Yearbook. Also, despite purportedly having radical policies that were much discussed, there is nor a single mention of him at all on Google or GBooks in English or Serbian, which one would expect from a controversial national minister. Curbon7 (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After spending an hour scrolling through Serbian Wikipedia's categories relating to Yugoslavian politicians, I think @Curbon7 is probably right here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's significant evidence that this might be a hoax — and even in the event that it isn't, we would still need reliable sources to properly verify that he was real. Even for a real person whose article claims to pass NPOL, we still have to be able to locate legitimate verification that the claim to passing NPOL is true. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails verifiability lacks sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Possible hoax, fails verifiability and WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per others, seems to be a hoax from a WP:SPA whose contributions include only this article. –Vipz (talk) 16:10, 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 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 14:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasia Insurance Company[edit]

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

Article looks like an advertisement (bragging about largest volumes of insurance, high financial strength ratings, etc.) Also one of the oldest orphans on Wikipedia, relies on primary sources, etc. There are not a lot of sources for the amount of content. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 10:28, 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. ✗plicit 14:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Escobar Gallardo[edit]

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

There are no sources in this article to demonstrate notability, and a quick Google search gives limited results. Spinixster (chat!) 10:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The character doesn't seem to have enough sources to establish individual notability. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources to establish separate notability under WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:03, 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 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 14:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kimber Henry[edit]

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

The majority of sources used in the article are episodes, episode recaps and interviews, which doesn't demonstrate notability per WP:FICTION/WP:N. A quick Google search gives episodes recaps, interviews and information unrelated to the character. Spinixster (chat!) 10:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find anything either, and despite the article's numerous sources, I don't believe most of them demonstrate notability, as the vast majority are primary. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:39, 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- nomination withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Staude[edit]

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

Not notable; fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:BIO1E also applies; coverage on this woman is always connected to the painting. An article about the painting itself may be more appropriate, but no such article currently exists. If it is created, I would suggest merging this content into the article on the painting. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. To clarify, this page is about both the painting and the person. We have many articles on Wikipedia that do both. The reason I think the article name needs to be her name and not "Portrait of" (which is now a redirect), is that many sources refer to the painting as simply Johanna Staude. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense, thanks for the clarification! The issue of insufficient sourcing remains, though. Only one of the sources currently in the article could be described as significant coverage, and some might construe that one as an unusually thorough database entry. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite. The person isn't notable. An article about the painting (Johanna Staude is a painting by Klimt, blablabla) may be acceptable, and in that article a section about the sitter may be included, but she isn't notable, and shouldn't e.g. be included in the "woman artists" categories if we have no indication that she is in any way a notabe artist; on the other hand it should be included in painting categories. Fram (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Still expanding. Yes will delete the category then. I'm just not very good at categories. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've switched the order of the lede around. Reads better. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Actualcpscm: This could have all been discussed on the article Talk page, or on my Talk page, or you could have contributed edits directly to the article, and added sources from your WP:BEFORE search. Seems like a misuse of AfD per WP:ATA. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to very strongly disagree there; the point of this discussion is still notability of the article subject, and the concerns raised in the AfD nomination have not been addressed in any substantial way. There are still not enough reliable sources providing significant coverage to establish notability. The fact that other editors haven't addressed notability concerns directly is not due to a lack of such concerns. Remember WP:OVERCOME. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a work in progress. Rather than micromanage every edit, why not help improve the article directly? Cielquiparle (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I'm micromanaging, and the reason I'm not working on the article is, as mentioned above, WP:OVERCOME. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not convinced you've done an adequate WP:BEFORE search or even bothered to check Wikipedia Library (or the Internet Archive or Google Books, where all the books are). Cielquiparle (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice. Please consider withdrawing this to save folks some time. WP:BEFORE.C.2: If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.. Article was nominated less than two hours old. If you really need to, tag it (BEFORE.C.3) —siroχo 12:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was nominated far too quickly. Whether the primary topic is the painting or the person is moot. More sources have emerged since the nom, and I think they are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:35, 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. ✗plicit 14:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mankind vs. The Undertaker (Boiler Room Brawl)[edit]

Mankind vs. The Undertaker (Boiler Room Brawl) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Sources mention details about the match, but not why the match independently notable. Most of the article is taken up by a plot summary, while the "Legacy" section just mentions future storyline developments. Wikipedia is not a summary-only description of works. Also fails WP:PWMATCH/WP:LASTING. — Czello (music) 07:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources the source in question is unreliable so it can’t be used to demonstrate notability, or in other words is useless to support the match being important.--67.70.144.202 (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, The Sportster should never be used for any reason. It also takes multiple sources to demonstrate notability (WP:GNG).LM2000 (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sportskeeda is an unreliable source too, and the article relies on stuff by TheSportster and Sportskeeda (5/6 citations). The reliability of the remaining source (Kee On Sports Media Group) for pro wrestling content is uncertain. The match itself is not something special/notable outside of wrestling community. A notable PW match is something like Montreal Screwjob or Mankind vs. The Undertaker. --Mann Mann (talk) 05:55, 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 14:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of restaurants in South Africa[edit]

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

This purports to be a list of notable restaurants in South Africa, but is, in fact, almost entirely a list of global chains. Even then, not all chains seem notable for an article. I have removed, just prior to this AFD, 2 spammy external links [37] to non notable restaurants, Vida e Caffè is one of the few non chain entries, but is a cafe, not a restaurant. I asked about notability criteria in May. See: Talk:List of restaurants in South Africa and there are no replies. Charitably, WP:TNT would apply. Any list of notable restaurants would need to start from scratch with clear inclusion criteria as to what constitutes notability. More broadly, such a list potentially falls foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This page does not meet policy regarding WP:NLIST as this is not a notable collection, the collection never being discussed as a group or set. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Lists. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Agree that WP:TNT could likely apply but there's no need to preserve the curret iteration. —siroχo 08:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are 30 restaurants in the list. I found 8 global chains (Burger King, Dominos pizza, KFC, Krispy Kreme, McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Popeyes, Subway) and the remainder are local (Chicken Licken, Dulce Café, Debonairs Pizza, The Hussar Grill, John Dory's, Kauai, Kream, Mugg & Bean, Mzoli's, Mexican grills, Mochachos, Nando's, News Cafe, Panarottis, Papachinos, Roman's Pizza, RocoMamas, The Radium Beerhall, Spur,Steers, Vida e Caffè). Wimpy is a bit of an edge case. Regardless, I don't think NOMs assertion that this is "in fact, almost entirely a list of global chains" is valid. Also notability doesn't apply to the contents of lists as per WP:NLISTITEM. NOM wouldn't have gotten a reply on the talk page for the article, because there's a dearth of South African editors at the best of times and I daresay most are using their precious time with electricity for more important things than editing Wikipedia :). Also looks like there was an edit that removed a lot of content in 2021[38]. Park3r (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a Chicken Licken near where I live in Wales, and Nandos is all over. The same is true of various of these. (Dulce Cafe's page shows it is international, Debonairs Pizza has outlets in 14 countries, Hussar Grill is in 15 countries. I could go on. Which of these exactly do you think are not interantional?) Some of these (not all) may well have started in South Africa but they are global chains. Wimpy is not an edge case, it is clearly global too, started in the US. So yes, this is almost entirely a list of global chains and not individual notable restaurants. A few may be chains limited just to South Africa, but even then, this list still fails WP:NLIST. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chicken Licken is a very large and popular South African chain with hundreds of stores, the fact that an unrelated(?) Welsh takeaway shares its name doesn't make it an international brand. Debonairs originated in South Africa as did Hussar Grill, which started in Cape Town, and has 2 international branches.[39] As for Wimpy, it may have started overseas, but it is most popular in, and headquartered in, South Africa. Park3r (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It is not unrelated, it is, as I understand it, a franchise arrangement. In any case, Chicken Licken is certainly international as per its Wikipedia page, it is also in Botswana. Regarding the others that are also clearly international franchise chains, it would be possible to envisage a list that cuts out all the chains not started in South Africa, but what you have left is a different list. It is not a list of restaurants in South Africa, it is a list of restaurant franchise chains originating in South Africa. Also your point about notability not applying to individual items is all very well, but the page says: This is a list of notable restaurants in South Africa. Clearly it can't be a list of all restaurants as that would be indiscriminate, so the one criterion that is in place is notability, however that is defined. Thus my removal of two external links to non notable restaurants was in order, I think, but I mentioned it in the nom. statement to be up front about a change I made to the page prior to nomination. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's indiscrimate information. Nobody is suggesting that this list is ever going to include every restaurant in SA therefore inclusion is entirely at the whim of editors. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Restaurant chains in South Africa exist. Are we listing restaurants that exist only in South Africa, which began in South Africa, or which exist in other places as well as South Africa? If its the last one then the list would be pointless. Dream Focus 00:32, 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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 06:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Carstensen[edit]

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

NN musician - notability assertions not supported by reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 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! 06:15, 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! 06:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We also have some decent coverage here that is not independent:
—siroχo 06:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The NYT is a blog discussion of the columnist's playlist, with about a paragraph for this artist. Hardly sigcov, somewhat reliable. AllMusic is fine. The first Billboard article is a photo caption, very "passing mention". Rest of the sources are about as useless for proving notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gsearch only brings up Spotify, social media and Soundcloud links. All non-useful for notability. Coverage above is trivial mentions of the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The NYT blog is definitely sigcov, describing the way the subject plays harp, the way the subject sings, production, relationships, diagnosis, etc. Via WP:SIGCOV Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. —siroχo 23:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the cited doctoral dissertation is SIGCOV, not useless for proving notability. —siroχo 23:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this Billboard piece is significant coverage here and continues on another page, there's also the AllMusic review and the doctoral dissertation, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 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. Star Mississippi 02:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Chen[edit]

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

NN Musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Perhaps something can be salvaged in a merge? But to where? UtherSRG (talk) 13:03, 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! 06:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Could feasibly meet WP:PRODUCER but the sourcing is very weak in this article. Maybe sources like [40][41] help a bit? Might also meet WP:MUSICBIO.10 if the TV show features can be verified in sources. —siroχo 10:25, 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! 06:01, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inés Marful[edit]

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

NN author - fails WP:AUTHOR UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised the same review in the article. I could find much else. scope_creepTalk

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep beyond on what we already know, also note that the work Lorca y sus dobles: interpretación psicoanalítica de la obra dramática y dibujística has 31 citations on google scholar. For a humanities non-english work this is a huge number for google scholar. —siroχo 06:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unable to see not pass WP:NAUTHOR. Meegvun (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - On JSTOR, I found a review for the 209-page essay Lorca y sus dobles (and have added it to the article); based on a publisher bio (which in addition to biographical and career information includes, Google translated: "She is the author of the essay Lorca y sus dobles (Extraordinary Doctorate Award, which in its day was described as "the definitive work on the poet from Granada" (Manuel Alvar, Blanco y Negro)"), as well as the citation information offered above, this appears to be a notable work, and as noted above, another one of her works is reviewed in a scholarly journal. The potential for non-English sources to exist about this academic writer and award-winning novelist and her work has me further leaning keep. Beccaynr (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And I found a source about her after she won the 2008 Premio de Novela Casino de Mieres award for one of her novels: Marful recoge emocionada el premio del Casino de Mieres (El Comercio, 2008). Beccaynr (talk) 23:49, 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 merge‎ to The Sidney Hillman Foundation. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sidney Award[edit]

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

This award appears to fail the WP:GNG. The sources in the present article are all directly from the website of the Sidney Hillman Foundation (which presents the award), and I'm unable to find significant coverage of the award itself from multiple independent reliable sources. The award is mentioned in The Sidney Hillman Foundation, so I think that a blank-and-redirect to the section of that article which talks about this award is warranted. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and merge content to Hillman Foundation - Agree with above.
---Avatar317(talk) 01:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is fine. Nothing notable otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 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. ✗plicit 06:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Yurdansky[edit]

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

NN chess player - fails WP:NCHESS. UtherSRG (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above. The article should be renamed to Peter Iordansky.Jaguarnik (talk) 03:25, 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 06:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Xian (chess player)[edit]

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

NN chess player - fails WP:NCHESS UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Books returns some results in Chinese, but I'm not sure there's enough to meet GNG. Cobblet (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:22, 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. Standard to apply is NCORP and addressed by delete side. The jeep side has not addressed this standard Spartaz Humbug! 07:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Monem Limited[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Brochure article. Routine business news as references. scope_creepTalk 12:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M.parvage (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems PROMO, with only routine business announcements for procuring funding and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge according to the discussion. Mehedi Abedin 13:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The state of the article is not great, but that should not be used to judge notability. Coverage in news articles: 1, 2, and 3. It has been covered in academic articles 1, 2, and 3. Used as a case study in a book.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I would suggest keep since it is an industrial giant in the 25th largest economy in the world. It has multibillion dollar revenues and employs tens of thousands of people. Please consider it improving rather than proposing for deletion without studying its background. Maqayum (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What counts per WP:NCORP is the standard of the reference. I notice you have only completed one Afd but your the article creator I guess.

Lets have a look at them.

  • Ref 1 [44]]. This in interview, content taken from the website. Fails WP:ORGIND.
  • Ref 2 [45] Company website. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent.
  • Ref 3 [46] This routine coverage, failing WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Ref 4 Same as above.
  • Ref 5 [47] About the man himself, not the company. Its not in-depth.
  • Ref 6 [48] Obituary. Its not independent.
  • Ref 7 [49] Same as ref 4.

Looking at the references above.

  • Ref 8 [50] Obit. Not independent.
  • Ref 9 [51] Same ref as above.
  • Ref 10 [52] Not indepth.Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 11 [53] Good secondary ref.
  • Ref 12 [54] Not independent. Written by an intern at the company and branded with company branding. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 13 [55] Not independent. Written by an intern at the company and branded with company branding. Fails WP:SIRS

Potentially there is 1 secondary source but the quality of the references are woeful and fail WP:NCORP. It is not enough to satisfy WP:THREE, which per consensus is established WP:AFD best practice. At best the secondary proves exist and verifiable but not necessarily notable after an extensive WP:BEFORE search. scope_creepTalk 08:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete according to the nomination and the ongoing conversation. RPSkokie (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as I see no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - added some refs. There is probably enough notability for inclusion, I think either closing as keep or no consensus to let the article further develop should be fine. - Indefensible (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the references:
  • Ref 1 [56] It states According to a press release Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 2 [57] Numerous conversations with the Monen director, for each project. Fails WP:ORGIND.
  • Ref 3 [58] Mentioned Monem indirectly. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 4 [59] A short paragraph, profile essentially. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 5 [60] Passing mention.Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 6 [61] Four words. Fails WP:SIRS

More of the same and a complete lack of intellectual rigour and complete ignorance of policy as though it doesn't exist. scope_creepTalk 06:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Complete lack" seems like hyperbole and maybe you should reconsider whether you are wrong, for example 16 is at least 3 paragraphs. - Indefensible (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
INHERITORG applies. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of poor sources noted above. Chamaemelum (talk) 03:07, 8 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 and move to Skevington's gyves. – Joe (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scavenger's daughter[edit]

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

False page As far as I can tell, this page is completely false. If I'm wrong, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstar3k (talk • contribs) 09:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so there is this [62] from 1894, this from 1905 [63] and this mention of the device [64]. Not sure they amount to substantial coverage, and if we'd even consider 100 yr old journals as RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Skevington's gyves: several hits on Google Books for that title, currently given in article as an alternative name. Most of those on p1 are Victorian,[65][66][67][68][69] but some more recent hits with WP:SIGCOV on p2 onwards: [70][71][72][73][74]). It's definitely real, or at least discussed as such by reliable sources: either way, it passes WP:GNG, but doesn't seem to be most commonly known under the present title. Seems to be quite widely discussed in relation to Protestant martyrdoms under Henry VIII and Mary Tudor, particularly in relation to Foxe's mention of it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:26, 15 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! 19:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:12, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Taylor Kellock[edit]

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

I'm quite willing to believe David Taylor Kellock was an active and busy stained glass artist, but there's no evidence here he meets WP:GNG. The only citation here is an article by him in a student publication. Whatever the motivation was to write this article, I think it's had its day and time for it to be deleted. Sionk (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search for sources turned up nothing for "David Taylor Kellock", and only false positives for "David Kellock," so this does not meet the general notability guideline. Elspea756 (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. I've added a few sources to the article and am leaning towards "Keep" at this point. Elspea756 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep A local artisan and educator, we will need local sources to complete this. I did find him on two wikis (one Ballarat, one on Australian [monuments]) but those should not be considered reliable sources. I added one reference from a local newspaper on his retirement from teaching. I find no sources for the many works listed in the article. The only thing in the National Library of Australia is a photo of one of his designs in an archive. There is possible something about him in "Down, G. (1996). Almost in the dark: The reinstatement of a lost 19th century window. Historic Environment, 12(2b), 35–38." but I don't have access to it. Lamona (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This book, "Zimmer, Jenny. Stained Glass in Australia. United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 1984." turns up for him on G-Books but the snippet ends just before listing his works. He's also listed in "Who's who in Art. United Kingdom, Art Trade Press, Limited, 1972." but again the snippet cuts off before any info is given. Lamona (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST and I am not finding any reliable sourcing for the biographical information presented. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to the addition of sources. I see that the Keeps are fairly Weak but I think the discussion would benefit from a few more recently offered opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seems to be a fair bit of coverage turning up, seems to pass GNG. Beyond the above,
    • Here's a description of one of subjects works: [76]
    • Note about designing a stained glass window and some background info. Includes a quote from Kellock. Should still qualify as independent as it's not a full interview. [77]
    • Dedication of stained glass windows at Memorial Chapel, also noting Kellock as "the chapel artist" [78]
—siroχo 07:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above user's impressive sourcing work. Chamaemelum (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reading the above discussion without reviewing sources cited in the article could give a false impression, as one of the strongest sources, Hughes 1997, hasn't been mentioned yet. The reliability of Master's theses can be controversial, but frankly it's better coverage and analysis than the newspaper citations. I wouldn't use it to fight a claim in a peer-reviewed paper or PhD thesis, but it should establish notability here together with the Northern Star article and the identification of additional, inaccessible academic coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 04:01, 8 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. Star Mississippi 02:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the Broken[edit]

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

Likely to fail WP:NBAND. KH-1 (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless some reliable secondary sources can be found—has the band been discussed in significant newspapers (i.e. the Wheeling Intelligencer, Charleston Gazette, Huntington Herald-Dispatch, etc., other than merely being mentioned on concert/event schedules? Are there any sources other than schedules/promotional materials and self-published blogs/websites? If the band has even minimal notability, it should be easy to establish now that most media are available online. P Aculeius (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This band was featured today on the Southwestern Virginia Sun due to their upcoming performance at the local festival today. I added the news source to the page. Danzigmusicfan1 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a passing mention: all it says is that it's an 8-piece band from Danville and that they're performing at the Chautauqua festival in Wytheville, Virginia at 8:30 p.m. tonight. That's a schedule, not significant coverage, and the paper it's in isn't exactly a household name. This looks like what WP:SIGCOV calls a "trivial mention": it doesn't talk about the band or its members or its songs; it's the briefest description possible, and its sole purpose is letting a small number of readers know that the band performing at a local festival two hours from now. P Aculeius (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:48, 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! 05:07, 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. Star Mississippi 02:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AIR News[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Uncited, orphan article. A before search only brings up primary cites. Moronterei (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IgelRM (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 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! 05:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Half the article is an unsourced station list of what is an on-hire news service merely there for AU stations to carry to fulfill basic license guidelines and with no real designs to do more than rip and read the wire and provide a couple of standard music countdowns. Nate • (chatter) 00:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cannot find sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:47, 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 merge‎ to Luhansk People's Republic#Government and politics. Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peace to Luhanshchyna[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy WP:GNG. No reliable sources cited.  —Michael Z. 03:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails to satisfy WP:GNG. No reliable sources cited.--Panam2014 (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider a possible Redirect or Merge to suggested target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Luhansk People's Republic#Government and politics per Curbon7's ATD. There are only a couple of lines of substantive information here and those would appropriately be incorportated on that page. There does not appear to be significant coverage such that an encyclopaedic article in its own right can be sustained. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I agree with the previous comment--Noel baran (talk) 17:12, 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 List of Bewitched episodes. There is no real consensus here but I'm going to go with a closure that does the least harm. If you want you can take this to DRV or WP:RFD if you care that much. I just doubt that a 3rd relist would bring in any additional editors. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bewitched home video releases[edit]

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

WP:NOTCATALOGUE, poorly sourced fancruft Ajf773 (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Ajf773 (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Bewitched episodes and potentially merge some of the content there. While it seems clear to me that this topic does not have standalone notability, I don't think it matters whether it is "cruft" or not. jp×g 18:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per JPxG above. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  22:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of these “list of home video x” things have been deleted or are heading that way and I see no logic to a redirect, besides the general logic that Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap which doesn’t mean you should always redirect deletable material if there’s even the tiniest plausible excuse for one. Dronebogus (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:59, 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! 04:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. There is not any content that is really suitable for merging to the proposed List of Bewitched episodes, and a redirect would not make a whole lot of sense, as I doubt this would be a particularly common search term. Rorshacma (talk) 16:18, 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. ✗plicit 23:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fingazz[edit]

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

Non-notable music entrepreneur. Sources are all un-RS, discogs and the like. Nothing found in RS, appears PROMO. Was also deleted way back in 2017, for lack of sourcing, same as this nom. Oaktree b (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WFEF-LD[edit]

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

Another DTV America/HC2/Innovate Corp. LPTV with no real notability. Persistent unsourced claims by an IP that this is somehow a Univision-owned Spanish independent have led me to conclude that any continued retention of this article would do little good. This was anotehr article that was part of a bulk nomination of many Innovate Corp./HC2-associated TV stations' articles earlier this year, which failed largely because it was too bulky (and intermingled stations much like this one with co-owned stations that nonetheless have longer and/or more-verifiable histories); the articles nominated in it were exempted from any standard post-close waiting periods. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another HC2 burn-off station. Nate • (chatter) 00:10, 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 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[edit]

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

Does not meet 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]

Myong J. Joun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mónica Ramírez Almadani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jeffrey Cummings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vernon D. Oliver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kenly Kiya Kato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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 no consensus‎. Rather than relist this discussion a 3rd time, I'm closing this discussion as No Consensus. You could follow up this AFD but discussing whether it should be Merged or Redirected on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL; only two of the available sources might constitute SIGCOV, and most content in one of them is not intellectually independent of the college. The reliability of those sources is also not clear. The other sources are either WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS, or entries in rankings (not SIGCOV). Previously soft-deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies). Actualcpscm (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While some sources are available, they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a notable school. No WP:SIGCOV. CastJared (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or perhaps "Merge" to a suitable list of undergraduate business school programs in India. Why do we keep having AFDs about schools in India, when surely they can/should be covered in list-articles, at least? Out of context, i.e. without them being properly listed (say with notes about accreditations, etc.) it is hard to evaluate a single new article. I see there exists List of MBA schools in India which is a pretty poor list with no explanation of its membership criteria (e.g. it is not defined like in the U.S. there could be a list of what was once termed AACSB-accredited programs), but I don't see a list of undergrad programs. More articles about business schools in India will keep coming, if a relevant list is not created and developed.
This claim in the article seems significant:

SSCBS was ranked #92 among (all) colleges in India by the National Institutional Ranking Framework in 2023[1] and #1 among BBA colleges in India by India Today in 2021.[2]

References

  1. ^ "MoE, National Institute Ranking Framework (NIRF)". www.nirfindia.org. Retrieved 2023-06-15.
  2. ^ "Business Acumen | Best Colleges in BBA". India Today. Retrieved 2023-06-15.
Or is it deceptive, that "BBA" means Bachelor in Business Analysis, if that is something non-standard, vs. in the U.S. I think a Bachelor of Arts (BA) in Business Administration would be the most common terminology? Hard to say, without a table to compare it to others. Or maybe that ranking framework is a bogus one, I have not even read its article, but at least there is an appeal to something like an accreditation.
Note, it is not required that a good merge target be available, for the AFD to call for creation of such a target and suggest that an article be merged. Obviously (to me) the topic of bachelors levels business programs in India is notable, and we can/should have a list of them. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, there is a List of business schools in Asia, and now List of business schools in India redirects to India's section, and I began organizing it by location. It has no tabulation of ratings or accreditations, or any other information about the named schools, however. If there was a table and "Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies" was one row, then Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies could be redirected to a row anchor in that row, using an "id=" field in top line of the row.
I suggest this AFD be closed, and some editing initiative to address Wikipedia coverage of business schools in Asia, or at least India, be started. The corresponding List of business schools in the United States is better and has a table which provides a model for something better for India (altho I am confused about it mentioning 3 accreditations existing yet showing just one Yes-No column). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out that this isn't a matter of targeting Indian business schools. If an article is unlikely to meet the notability criteria, there will usually be an AfD discussion about it; that's just part of the process. In my opinion, the analysis "We delete too many articles like this" is much more a personal opinion than a policy-based argument. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST.
I'm also not sure what you mean by the article having a "significant claim"; if it didn't have a WP:CCOS, I would have nominated it in accordance with WP:CSD instead. However, again, this argument fails to address the actual problem here; there aren't any high-quality sources that establish the notability of this organization.
I'm not sure about the merge either, because the problem with the lack of reliable sourcing remains for this college. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC), edited 12:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Colleges and universities in India are ranked by the NIRF by the Ministry of Education, Government of India. According to that, this college comes in the top 100 colleges of India. According to India Today, the most widely circulated English magazine of India, this college was ranked #1 among BBA (bachelor of business administration) for two consecutive years - 2020 and 2021. After addition of new references, article should now meet WP:SIGCOV. As for accreditation, it is accredited Grade A by NAAC (National Assessment and Accreditation Council), the accrediting body of Govt. of India. Rajanarora95 (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:37, 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. ✗plicit 02:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roen Davis[edit]

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

7 official international appearances for the Bahamas national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:19, 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.

Blinovitch Limitation Effect[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Pokelego999 (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
Blinovitch Limitation Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional concept that doesn't have any significant coverage outside of the show itself. Outside of one pop culture reference it doesn't seem generally notable, and a search for sources yields little results. Doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV, and can probably be merged into an article somewhere. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:39, 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.

Destrii[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Pokelego999 (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

A search for sources yields very little results. Some exist, but not enough to meet SIGCOV. Doesn't seem to meet GNG or SIGCOV as of right now. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:33, 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.

Muriel Frost[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Pokelego999 (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article cites no sources, and I can't find any sources myself. Does not meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:31, 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 redirect‎ to Virgin New Adventures. ✗plicit 01:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kadiatu Lethbridge-Stewart[edit]

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

This character is lacking in notability to the extent that literally no results show up when looking for news articles talking about her. All references otherwise are primary sources. Does not meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so obscure it’s very unlikely that anyone will search for or link to this character. Dronebogus (talk) 01:39, 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.

Iris Wildthyme[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Pokelego999 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can't seem to find any non-primary sources for this character. While she seems notable in the fictional universe, she doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:27, 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.

Shayde[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Pokelego999 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can't seem to find any sources on this character. As it stands, he doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:25, 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.

Fey Truscott-Sade[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Pokelego999 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article doesn't cite any sources, and I can't find any sources at all for her. Doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:24, 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.

Sam Jones (Doctor Who)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Pokelego999 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can't seem to find any non primary sources for this character. Given the few sources both just focus on her death and its canonicity, I don't think this article meets GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:23, 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. ✗plicit 01:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Molly O'Sullivan[edit]

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

Can't seem to find any sources that aren't primary. Article currently doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The lack of secondary source material is an issue for WP:BASIC, so the article should be deleted. I'm surprised that this made it through the approval process via AfC. Definitely delete this one UNLESS strong secondary source material can be added to this article. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I didn't even think of the WP:GNG policy, but I don't think that this article meets that either. Firmly delete unfortunately, UNLESS other folks have some secondary source material to add into the mix here. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pumpkinspyce. I don't see enough secondary source material to support this article. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete generic name, unlikely search term for a redirect Dronebogus (talk) 01:40, 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.

Jason Kane (Doctor Who)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Pokelego999 (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can't seem to find any non-primary sources for this guy. As it stands, this article doesn't seem to meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:20, 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.

Flip Jackson[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Pokelego999 (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can't find any non primary sources for this character. Does not demonstrate meeting GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:17, 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.

Mila (Doctor Who)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Pokelego999 (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Made three appearances. Does not seem to display GNG or SIGCOV, and I doubt it ever will. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:16, 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.

Charley Pollard[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Pokelego999 (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article cites a few decent sources, but I can't find enough sources to demonstrate SIGCOV. Currently does not meet it as it stands. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:15, 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.

Evelyn Smythe[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Pokelego999 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

While she is generally notable in her series, I can't find enough outside sources to establish her separately. Her article currently doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV, and I don't think it's possible for her to meet those criteria as it stands. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:12, 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. ✗plicit 01:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Brewster (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

I can't find any sources for this guy, and he already has none on his article. Article doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete generically named supporting character from a minor spinoff that had only seven appearances in a 60-something-years-old franchise, which admittedly is an improvement over the “two works and it’s notable” gang like Nobody No-One and Nimrod (Doctor Who). Dronebogus (talk) 01:47, 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.

Abby (Doctor Who)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Pokelego999 (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't meet the GNG or SIGCOV. Not much more I can say on this, especially as I haven't found any sources for her. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:05, 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 merge‎ to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rutan (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

While being notable as part of the Sontarans' backstory, the Rutans themselves don't seem to meet GNG or SIGCOV. A search for sources yields only listicles. Rutans can probably be merged into either the Sontarans' article or the general list of alien races article. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above. Probably at least a semi-likely search term or link target Dronebogus (talk) 01:41, 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 redirect‎ to Frontier in Space. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draconian (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

One off alien race who has only appeared in spin-off media since. Does not seem to meet GNG or SIGCOV, and a search for sources yields nothing. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has been mentioned in-show and frequently in spin-off media and is considered one of the main villains. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note The user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pokelego999 has over approx two days mass-nominated for deletion fifty-one 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) 14:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Frontier in Space, their first appearance and only appearance in the TV show. What few sources I can actually find outside of fansites regarding the species is pretty much entirely just regarding their appearance in that single episode. There is no coverage that would indicate that the species is notable enough for their own article. Whatever importance they may have in the franchise (and honestly, it looks like they actually do not have very much at all) is irrelevant to actually passing the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Frontier in Space as WP:ATD, as they are not individually notable as a fictional race. I oppose redirecting to the list of aliens, as I don't believe they are major enough to even merit a mention there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Frontier in Space, per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ and Rorshacma. To the argument, by Anameofmyveryown, that we need to keep things that are mentioned and are "one of the main villains" (Tardis Data Core page seems to imply they are only referenced in the tv show twice in 2 throw away lines, in episodes outside of Frontier), that's an Assertion of notability without providing the thing that is needed for WP:GNG, that being sources in third-party WP:RSs. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect notability requires verifiable evidence. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV in third party sources to support this article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:08, 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 merge‎ to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sisterhood of Karn[edit]

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

While being a generally notable group in the show itself, the article itself lacks non primary sources, and I can't find any myself. Doesn't seem to meet SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:54, 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 redirect‎ to The Talons of Weng-Chiang. ✗plicit 01:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Gordon Jago[edit]

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

Generally not notable side character, same with his compatriot, Litefoot. Cites practically no sources and doesn't meet SIGCOV or GNG. I can't find any significant sources either. Contents should be merged into the List of Supporting Characters. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Talons of Weng-Chiang, his first and most famous (using that term loosely) appearance Dronebogus (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Talons of Weng-Chiang. Missing WP:SIGCOV to make this notable outside of its one appearance. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:53, 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 Talons of Weng-Chiang. ✗plicit 01:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Professor George Litefoot[edit]

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

Generally not notable side character, same with his compatriot, Jago. Cites practically no sources and doesn't meet SIGCOV or GNG. I can't find any significant sources either. Contents should be merged into the List of Supporting Characters. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:52, 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.

Forge (Doctor Who)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Pokelego999 (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable group of fictional characters. Article cites no sources, and I can't find any sources myself. Doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:49, 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 redirect‎ to Virgin New Adventures#Timewyrm. ✗plicit 01:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timewyrm[edit]

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

I can't find any sources on the character, and the article already cites no sources. Doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:48, 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.

Threshold (Doctor Who)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Pokelego999 (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Generally irrelevant group of antagonists. No sources seem to exist for them, and the article already cites no sources. Does not meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:46, 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 withdrawn‎ by nom after new sources provided. Katietalk 03:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kid in a Candy Store[edit]

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

Appears to fail notability guidelines for TV and GNG. Deleted in 2022 via PROD, but refunded with no improvements in a year since. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "Chicle sin azúcar" [Gum without sugar]. El Universo (in Spanish). 2012-11-23. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "At an accelerated rhythm, the program develops similarly to other culinary realities. Without surprises, its driver arrives in each town and city in search of a specific delicacy; Meet its creators, talks about the benefits of the product and their differentiating qualities while proving an infinite sample of candies and chocolates in order to return to the viewer to an era when they did not fear caries. While there are other programs in this category, Kid in A Candy Store does not have that element that elevates other productions, a charismatic driver. Gertler does not arouse any sympathy during his different presentations. Despite his effort and development before the cameras, he fails to convey the flavors and sensations of the tasted, providing an tasteless adventure among so many candy and caught cookies."

    2. Crook, John (2010-07-11). "'Kid in a Candy Store' is a sweet treat". The Dispatch / The Rock Island Argus. Zap2it. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The series follows Gertler as he tours the U.S. in search of unusual, delicious and beloved sweet treats, as well as new insight into how those treats are made. ... One episode takes Gertler inside the Treats Truck that tours Manhattan selling "dessert nachos" and gigantic Rice Krispie Treats (watch closely for Gertler's real mom and dad in that sequence), as well as the Creole Creamery in New Orleans, which specializes in ice creams that incorporate such unusual ingredients as sweet corn, peppercorns and roasted beats. ... The episode will also feature watermelon taffy from Salt Lake City, Utah, and sweet corn ice cream from New Orleans. ... "Kid in a Candy Store" combines the format of Gertler's 2009 Food Network series, "Will Work for Food" and a special he hosted for the network called "Extreme Sweets.""

    3. Feliciano, Sophia (2011-05-04). "San Antonio Tootie pie-sicles to debut on Food Network's Candy Store". San Antonio Current. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26.

      The article notes: "But for those who are most serious about the last course of a proper sit-down dinner - the dessert - the one to watch is Adam Gertler, host of the Food Network's Kid in a Candy Store. With the Tootie Pie Gourmet Café on Broadway flooded with lights, cameras, and free pies, I got the chance to observe the ever-animated Gertler play a culinary Peter Pan up close. Between takes playing an adoring customer, I peppered Gertler with questions. The cast was pretty type-based - a wide-eyed little girl, the all-American dad, the dynamic friend, or the jovial grandma - and each table was given a variety of pies to delve into, such as Buttercream, Key Lime Margarita, and Apple."

    4. Flores, Melissa (2011-03-25). "Scrum-diddly-umptious". Hollister Free Lance. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26.

      The article notes: "Eating candy might not seem like work, but Adam Gertler has made it into a career. He hosts the Food Network show “Kid in a Candy Store,” which airs Monday nights at 8:30 p.m. and he just happened to be in Hollister to film a segment of his show last week. During the two-day shoot, he made sampling the gourmet candy apples at DeBrito’s Chocolate Factory, on Briggs Road, look fun on camera despite the hard work that goes on behind the scenes. DeBrito’s segment is tentatively scheduled to air in May 9. ... Gertler and the crew arrived March 16 morning, with shooting going from noon to 8:30 p.m. They filmed on March 17 from 8 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., and it was off to the next location after that. The crew stayed nearby in the Best Western San Benito Inn. ... For the show, Gertler visits candy stores, bakeries and sweet factories all over the United States. Each show features at least three locations, so the job keeps him on the road during the September through April filming period. ... Before Gertler shows up on the set, he is given a little background information on the location but he said he prefers not to know too much so his reactions are more natural onscreen."

    5. Kinon, Cristina (2010-07-07). "This 'Candy' man just keeps on truckin'". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "New York's Tasty Treats Truck tantalizes Food Network's Adam Gertler in a new primetime series, "Kid in a Candy Store," debuting on Monday at 8. "Kid in a Candy Store" features Gertler, a former contestant on "The Next Food Network Star," traveling the country to find the most creative and most delicious candy, cakes and snacks. The Treats Truck will be featured in the second episode of the night, airing at 8:30, when Gertler's journey brings him to New York City."

    6. Schiele, Elizabeth (2010-07-07). "'Kid in a Candy Store' on Food Network". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Adam Gertler of "The Next Food Network Star" launches a new television series, "Kid in a Candy Store," featuring food truck fare, down-home delights and wacky twists on favorites such as deep-fried cupcakes and sweet beet ice cream. The first episode, "Take the Cake," takes Gertler to bakeries across the country, including Chicago's Lutz Cafe and Pastry Shop, where he learns how to prepare baumkuchen by roasting the cake in layers. Future episodes will include Chicago institutions iCream and Bleeding Heart Bakery."

    7. Fralic, Shelley (2011-04-11). "Reality shows offer relief from usual nightly fare. Bliss in TV's suburbs". Windsor Star. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Kid in a Candy Store (foodnetwork.ca for schedule of upcoming episodes) Here's hoping this new entry is less cloying than Unwrapped, the cheesy show that follows Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives most nights. This new sweet treat promises a bit more edge, as energetic host Adam Gertler (a comic-book collector, barbecue chef and former contestant on The Next Food Network Star) hits the highway in a six-part series in search of creative snacks like sweet beet ice cream and deep-fried cupcakes."

    8. Harris, Bill (2011-04-06). "New Season: Kids in a Candy Store crosses border". The Kingston Whig-Standard. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Both the second-season premiere of The Cupcake Girls on W, and the Canadian debut of Kid in a Candy Store on the Food Network, air Wednesday. ... Speaking of which, Kid in a Candy Store follows Adam Gertler as he criss-crosses the U.S. in search of the weirdest desserts. That means everything from margarita taffy to what appears to be no-melt ice cream."

    9. Philpot, Robert (2010-07-12). "Channel surfing". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Kid in a Candy Store: The charmingly goofy Adam Gertler, who didn't win when he competed on Next Food Network Star, gets a Food Network series, and it's a gig many people would consider a winner: traveling the country, finding the most outrageous sweet treats, which aren't limited to candy. Two episodes air; the first includes a visit to Holy Cacao, Austin's "gourmet dessert trailer." 7 and 7:30 p.m., Food"

    10. "Sinfully Sweet Apple Co. to appear on TV". Redlands Daily Facts. 2010-07-13. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26.

      The article notes: "When the Food Network came knocking a few weeks ago, the attention was the delicious topping to a whirlwind of growth for La Verne-based Sinfully Sweet Apple Co., a two-year-old dessert maker. The network is set to feature the caramel apple company on a show that debuted this week, “Kid in a Candy Store,” which sends host Adam Gertler on a quest for the tastiest and most creative treats in the U.S. The episode, “Eye Candy,” is planned to air July 26."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kid in A Candy Store to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider recently found sources that have been added to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn, as nominator I am convinced that the citations found by Cunard are enough to pass Wikipedia notability guidelines. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:02, 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! 00:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nimrod (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

I can't find anything detailing potential notability sources wise. The article itself doesn't even cite any. Doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete generically named character who appeared twice. Extremely unlikely search target. Dronebogus (talk) 01:42, 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! 00:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody No-One[edit]

Nobody No-One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I literally don't even know how this guy has an article. Literally no sources exist, and he appeared about twice. Doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unsourced, not well written, is literally a side character in a small production. 100% fails notability so I agree with deletion
Frzzl talk · contribs 09:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the old notability threshold for Dr. Who characters was seemingly “two appearances”. Dronebogus (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Incredibly minor fictional character that only ever appeared in two pieces of completely non-notable Doctor Who spinoff material. No sources included in the article, and searches brought up no coverage outside of fansites. Rorshacma (talk) 15:52, 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.

Courtney Woods[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Pokelego999 (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Despite having a few sources, all of her reception is dedicated entirely to both "The Caretaker" and "Kill the Moon" all other sources I can find are from the same two episodes, and I don't think there are enough sources from just those episodes to warrant a whole article. While it may have a shot at passing GNG, it definitely doesn't pass SIGCOV, and given that she hasn't appeared or been referenced since 2014, I doubt that's changing anytime soon. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:11, 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 Withdrawn‎. It is pretty clear where this is going at this point. A move discussion might be a better discussion to have. (non-admin closure) Interstellarity (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google and Wikipedia[edit]

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

This article has a limited scope, insufficient sourcing, duplication of information, and lack of maintenance. The article fails to provide unique or verifiable content regarding the relationship between Google and Wikipedia, and its inclusion adds redundancy and offers little value to readers. There isn't anything this from article that can't be covered by the articles Google and Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't follow the nominator's argument, at all:
    • This article has a limited scope – this is usually a good thing?
    • [...] insufficient sourcing, fails to provide [...] verifiable content – as of writing the article cites 16 sources. There is one unsourced passage (which I've just tagged), everything else is supported by at least one inline citation.
    • duplication of information, there isn't anything this from article that can't be covered by the articles Google and Wikipedia – a truism that applies to any article about the relationship between two independently notable entities. We could write about the relationship between Wikipedia and Google in Wikipedia and Google, but we don't (because it would be undue in both), and if we did it would arguably be more duplicative (because we'd need sections in both).
    • The article fails to provide unique, its inclusion adds redundancy – appears to allude to WP:CFORK, but there isn't an article that duplicates this article's scope (i.e. Wikipedia and Google), and redundancy is sometimes a good thing
    • lack of maintenance – WP:IMPATIENT, though this doesn't seem particularly un-maintained compared to the average article
So in the absence of a coherent argument for deletion, I default to keep. – Joe (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - joe and siroxo have pretty much covered all there is to it - no reason to delete, and very much reason to keep around. Frzzl talk · contribs 09:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If page closes, it's no consensus BMarGlines (talk) 19:00, 21 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_June_30&oldid=1164158514"