Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 07	March 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Pacific Oceania Billie Jean King Cup team. Sandstein 19:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayka Zima

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources do exist such as [1] and [2], however they are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of those "trivial" sources establishes a claim to notability: the first Tahitian to compete in the Federation Cup.--IdiotSavant (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Redirect? Another tough one. First Tahitian in Fed Cup. Two Bronze medals in the same international tournament at the 2015 Pacific Games. Usually when looking at a tennis career that might be enough. The only problem is in looking at her full pro career it's a blank slate. Per the WTA she played no events ever. Per the minor league ITF Challenger level I see no events played. Per the minor-minor league ITF events I see no events ever played. Did they lose her records or did she never play anything other than Fed Cup and the Pacific Games those two years? All I see is some junior results from 2008. Did she get injured and retire? Did she die? Because she did absolutely nothing else I would lean towards Delete but perhaps a better idea is to redirect this to Pacific Oceania Billie Jean King Cup team where her name is in a list. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep simply for being the first Tahitian to play in that particular tournament as described. This would also help combat "Western nation only" bias on wiki, where anything and everything from a western nation gets noted, but hardly anything from elsewhere on the planet does. Oaktree b (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also coverage in French from Radio 1 Tahiti we can use to flesh out the article. [3] Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of whether there are or are not multiple reliable and independent sources which cover this subject in reasonable depth would be helpful in determining notability. Tangential discussions of "first", "western", or the like are generally not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ redirect Happy to go with emerging consensus below. WP:BEFORE shows an almost complete lack of SIGCOV. Routine match listings, incidental mentions in a few news reports that lead with Carol Lee. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pacific Oceania Billie Jean King Cup team with no prejudice towards recreation if Tahitian sources are found that cover her more in depth. I found absolutely nothing on normal searches of Google and Newspapers.com, but imagine there could be local sources that we're somehow missing here. Per WP:NTENNIS, she doesn't meet the mark right now but it seems oddly strange that this is all she ever did. Nomader (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Want to explicitly note here that Oaktree b's article is a great find, but I don't think it's enough significant coverage to pass muster. A note should be added to the talk page with links to the few references we have for her. Nomader (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only other mentions are on a site called Tahiti Info, [4]. I suppose it's RS, appears to be a news website. Sports Tahiti [5]. This about a match from a Saipan newspaper, [6]. Radio New Zealand [7]. A Tahiti Newspaper [8]. There isn't much else. Are these decent-enough sources? Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tahiti Infos is a news site, and its the source for pretty much everything in French Polynesia. Radio1 and TNTV are also good sources for French Polynesian content.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about a redirect to the Pacific Oceania team that competed, there plenty of coverage about the team she played with? Oaktree b (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which I mentioned and linked to in my post. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And which I also listed above. Per the sources that Oaktree found, they're all... kind of passing mentions of Zima herself, but really terrific information about the team at large. It honestly reinforces my !vote towards redirecting. Nomader (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pacific Oceania Billie Jean King Cup team as per Nomader as an ATD. Also preserves history, and if more sourcing can be found in future, no prejudice against recreating. I think Fyunck(click)'s analysis is spot on.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:45, 17 March 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!} 21:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omkar Prasad Baidya

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

It looks far WP:TOOSOON at best for WP:NPROF notability for this 2013 PhD with a handful of articles and few citations. Google scholar profile at [9]. I'm not seeing any reliable sources for GNG. There are several books, but they appear to be self-published, and more importantly, no reviews are apparent for WP:NAUTHOR. No signs of other notability. Article is currently in WP:TNT state anyway. Prodded by Onel5969, deprodded by IP. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whopping high citation count of 12 and an h-Index of 5, and none of his positions merit WP:NSCHOLAR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly by nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Tripura. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete – completely useful unsourced and unneeded, per WP:NAUTHOR --Loewstisch (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree with the WP:TNT point, though. WP:TNT doesn’t apply to this article, the subject of which doesn’t meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines specified in WP:NSCHOLAR, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:NPROF. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't meet the criteria, per WP:NAUTHOR to be kept as an article.Khorang 16:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the many reasons discussed above. I want to stress that we almost never keep articles about assistant professors. Bearian (talk)
Delete, fails everything. Additionally the article creator is clearly a UPE [10]. JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 15 March 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Wojahn

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

Unsure of the notability, College Park is not a major metropolis like Baltimore. Working as a small town mayor isn't necessarily notable. Having child pornography charges brought against him doesn't help or hinder his notability. Also concerned about the undue weight the mention of these charges in the article puts on the subject's notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Maryland, and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's a fair question. Looking at him from the point of view of a month ago, he didn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO, so we'd have had only WP:GNG to work from. I'm not the nominator and I'm not !voting, at least just yet, so I don't have to do the due diligence 😀 but can say that I don't think he's had that kind of coverage.

Regarding his arrest and the charges in isolation from his career, as child pornography suspects are concerned he's run-of-the-mill. At least in the absence of new findings that he's been a major distributor, I doubt word of it would have reached beyond his immediate media coverage zone, and that it would it be sustained.

Putting the two together, his position and the charges, is how this got more than local notice. WP:NPOL can be met by "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." But I don't know what mayor of College Park is "major". What's major? It's the major political role within its jurisdiction, but do we go by that is it discerned relative to political office holders throughout the area? But, also, that second criterion at WP:NPOL has a footnote that uses the word "depth" a number of times, and I don't think we have depth at this point.

WP:BIO1E would come into it if the event (his arrest) were notable, but I don't think it is. Largoplazo (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that he does not seem to satisfy the WP:NPOL criteria as a "major" local political figure who has received significant press coverage. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree about deleting; not significant enough to have in Wikipedia 205.213.113.70 (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no significant coverage for WP:NPOL. JoseJan89 (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage falls short of WP:SIGCOV that would justify inclusion under WP:NPOL. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. Specifically, I wish to note that College Park is a city of about 35,000 residents. We almost never keep articles about mayors of cities of that size. Obviously, there are exceptions, but they have lots of deep coverage, rather than a WP:BLP1E case as exists here. He also fails my own long-standing standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jisu Prem English School

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

Primary school that does not pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG. I found The Church at Powai, which manages this school so fails WP:ORGIND clearly. I revived the Acadym reference but it's clearly just a database profile page and there is nothing to suggest that this is WP:RS or that the coverage is significant. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Odisha. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim whatsover of notability. Two of the sources are dead links and the other is merely a run-of-the-mill listing.TheLongTone (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheLongTone. No claims of notability, and primary schools have never been considered per se notable in the history of Wikipedia. Therefore, it must meet all the guidelines. Fails my standards for school as a private primary school. It pains me that these pages are still here, especially one like this that is so poor as almost meeting WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FreshMenu

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

The page has COI in past. Currently, all news are related to company profile, funding, data breach incident. Fails WP:ORG Lordofhunter (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All coverage appears to be routine. Does not appear to meet NCORP. Valereee (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. As Valereee mentioned, all the coverage appears to be routine. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article subject doesn’t satisfy criteria per WP:NORG or WP:NCORP, let alone WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and NCORP. Run of the mill company with weird, yet otherwise run of the mill coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. From what I can see from the news stories found by a Google news search, it would be possible to write an interesting and useful article about the company, and the various problems it has faced over time. Doing this in draft would be best.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lil'Goodness

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

Not meeting CORP. Routine funding announcements and product launches are all that's discussed in media. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is promotional-only with no likelihood for WP:RS sources. Markofdignity is promoting the company by this edit of an image on Prebiotic (nutrition). User is warned about WP:PROMO. Zefr (talk)
Delete. Coverage appears to be routine. Does not appear to meet NCORP. Valereee (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. The company has been featured on Shark Tank India Season 2 Episode 48 and has other media mentions. There is enough coverage of this Indian company and the founder on reliable and mainstream Indian news portals.>^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] and its a sizeable business with unique products that has enough significance and impact on the market which it serves. It has also gained momentum and recognition via Television media after being featured on Shark Tank India on one of India's biggest TV Stations. Markofdignity (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of these news sources supplied by user Markofdignity is usable per WP:RS, WP:NOTNEWS. The company also has no established or inherent notability as an encyclopedia topic, WP:ORGSIG. The article should be deleted. Zefr (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/health-focused-food-brand-lilgoodness-aims-to-achieve-turnover-of-rs-500-crore-by-fy26/articlesh.ow/95914994.cms
^ https://www.indianretailer.com/interview/retail-people/new-commerce/how-lilgoodness-healthifying-kids-snacking-segment
^ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/food/health-food-maker-lilgoodness-announces-launch-of-disney-marvel-inspired-products/articleshow/96174049.cms
^ https://www.indianretailer.com/news/lil-goodness-ropes-in-namrata-shirodkar-and-her-daughter-sitara-for-an-exclusive-brand-association.n14176
^ https://www.indianretailer.com/article/retail-business/consumer-trends/what-makes-healthy-snacking-next-big-segment
^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/millet-brands-expected-to-gain-from-budgets-promotion/articleshow/97588458.cms
^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/lifestyle/health/world-diabetes-day-2022-parenting-tips-on-portion-control-mindful-eating-to-avoid-diabetes-in-teenagers-101668321671542.html

Delete None of the references are independent. Fails WP:NCORP. Plainly obvious. scope_creep^Talk 21:13, 15 March 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 Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Women's 400 metres hurdles. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salhate Djamalidine

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5 ("Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources."). Article is a micro stub based solely on a database and fails to cite any SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through all the google results and at other wikis and here's what I've found: the French wiki has a slightly more detailed article and lists this short source from L'express. There's a brief piece here. Is this a book about her and three others? There seems to be an article on her at Le'Parisien but something seems up with that website and the article isn't making sense. That's all I could find. Looks like a GNG fail unless that book has something. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Djamalidine is one of the greatest track and field athletes in their country's history. Deleting this article will only further Wikipedia's systemic bias. We should work to expand it from existing sources (thanks BeanieFan11).--User:Namiba 23:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid rationale. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sportsfan 1234. We need WP:SIGCOV (including at least one example in the article). If this is done, I'll reconsider my vote. Cbl62 (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question: I added some content, noting she has represented her country on multiple occasions. I don't know the sports guidelines well, so have a question: does holding multiple national records not make her presumed notable? Is that what WP:NATH C4 means? CT55555(talk) 00:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the country. It is far more difficult to hold national records in China than in Niue. If Comoros has national championships, and she has won them, then yes, NATH #4 would apply, but I do not see that in the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It only says she holds records. I now assume that records can be won without a championship, so if I'm processing this correctly, being the best in a smaller (population 850,000) nation at many track events (holding the record) is not an indicator of notability? CT55555(talk) 01:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The subject fails NATH #4 "Have won their country's senior national championship, with the exception of those that have never been ranked in the top 60 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year. The subject has never been ranked in the top 60. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555(talk) 00:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unsure. Finding references to write a proper biography is the trick. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NTRACK as pointed out fails NATH #4. LibStar (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage Alvaldi (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This continues the systematic bias problem, but unfortunately the sources don't establish that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Women's 400 metres hurdles - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 10:49, 11 March 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. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vilikesa Vosagaga

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

WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, so GNG must be met. It needs several refs from independent, reliable, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. Was moved to draft in hopes of improvement, but immediately returned to mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added refs. These were easy to find, and I'm surprised the nominaotr didn't add them rather than leaping immediately to deletion.--IdiotSavant (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources on article (Fiji Times and FBC) which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman, there are two sentences that contain independent coverage directly on Vosagaga in the Fiji Times article:
Vosagaga, who hails from Saivou Village in Seaqaqa, plays for his district’s senior and youth teams.
The Seaqaqa Central College Year 11 student featured for his district at the 2022 Courts Inter District Championship and his performance caught the eyes of national selectors.
How does that pass YOUNGATH? JoelleJay (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's sufficient coverage. Giant Snowman 18:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman, how are two sentences enough to meet SPORTBASIC, let alone the higher sourcing requirements of YOUNGATH? The FBC article isn't much better, with under 5 independent sentences on him. He fails NSPORT and all former iterations of NFOOTY (he never played for the national team or in the Fiji first league; I couldn't verify he even played for second-tier team Seaqaqa FC (he did play for Seaqaqa College), in fact I can't even find a website for Seaqaqa FC to check their roster...), so why is a wikipedia article on this child warranted? JoelleJay (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained my views already. You badgering me will not get me to change. Giant Snowman 19:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Clearly young significant figure in Fijian football with ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage looks significant enough to pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ?? This is a 15-year-old. We do not have articles on 15-year-old footballers unless they go waaaay beyond the standard regional press covering high school sports. Do you know how many thousands more (predominantly western) kids would have wikipedia articles if we applied these same ultra-low standards of sourcing to everyone? [11] is a local interview-style article on children (fails YOUNGATH) that contains around two sentences of independent coverage, with the rest being direct quotes or "Vosagaga said", N. [12] is similarly bereft of independent content, most of it again being "[he] said" crypto-quotes, N. [13] is a trivial mention in the same paper as #1, N. [14] is a trivial mention in a routine match recap, N. [15] is a trivial mention inside primary/non-indy content, N. [16] is another trivial mention by the same outlet as #5. This is exceptionally far from passing GNG, let alone YOUNGATH. JoelleJay (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is also important to mention that the article has been expanded. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's also important to mention that young athletes must have prolonged coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources on the article. I agree with GiantSnowman that there is enough here to pass GNG. Carson Wentz (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify how this meets YOUNGATH, in particular the requirement that coverage is substantial and prolonged? The only two sources that aren't trivial occurred within a week of each other, clearly failing the "prolonged" clause. JoelleJay (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's tough to assess on that criterion right now given that the subject is still only 15. We'd have to revisit in a few years. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - two sources that GS points out are just about enough for GNG. GNG is not a ridiculously high bar. We simply need two independent WP:RS providing coverage that we can at least build something from. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this discussion as Keep but it has been challenged so I'm relisting this discussion.

For the record my closure read: "The result was keep. There is a consensus among participating editors that GNG is met here. There is also a vocal opposition to that judgment but the consensus is to Keep this article even if some of the Keeps are Weak Keeps, either explicitly or in terms of the Keep opinions put forth."
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references added to list above are enough to pass WP:GNG. There is no requirement that WP:YOUNGATH also be met, either meeting GNG or an SNG is required for notability. Frank Anchor 19:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
YOUNGATH explains what constitutes GNG coverage of young athletes, it's not a separate guideline criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~No, GNG explains what constitutes GNG coverage of all subjects, which includes young athletes. And I believe GNG to be met in this case. Frank Anchor 19:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
Different topic areas have different ways of assessing what is SIGCOV and compliance with other P&Gs. But regardless, as noted below, SUSTAINED is straight from N and clearly applies here. JoelleJay (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~GNG is enough to establish notability. We obviously disagree on if this met GNG, so~~ I would appreciate it if you would stop bludgoening anyone who offers a different opinion, whether here or on their talk page in the case of a user who presented an opinion other that what you expected from them (and I fully understand the message was posted on Spider’s talk page and not here because the AFD was closed and later reopened. However I want to sure others are aware of this conversation). Frank Anchor 04:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to draftify based on comments by Hey man I’m Josh and Beaniefan11. Upon a further review of sources, it is probably WP:TOOSOON for an article on this subject. Frank Anchor 20:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. The Fiji Times and FBC sources each have two non-primary sentences on him, the rest is qoutes from him. It is massively disapointing to see experienced editors claiming that is enough for a 15-year old kid to pass GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And lets not forget, those two sources are from 1 and 7 January 2023 which would utterly fail WP:SUSTAINED. Alvaldi (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG, particularly after applying WP:YOUNGATH. The Fiji Times source is not in-depth and most of it is Q&A. I cannot open the FBC News source, so if someone believes there is something highly useful there I'd appreciate if they could post an excerpt here. That said one decent source on a youth athlete isn't going to satisfy the GNG under any circumstance. Jogurney (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jogurney, here's the entirety of the FBC source:

The likes of Fiji Football captain Roy Krishna and striker Sairusi Nalaubu have been a source of inspiration to young and upcoming footballers.
15-year-old Vilikesa Vosagaga who is part of the Baby Bula Boys squad took up the sport after watching Nalaubu play for Suva, Lautoka, and the national team.
The Saivou, Seaqaqa in Macuata youngster says he was inspired by how the Lautoka striker performed on the field.
A striker himself, Vosagaga says he wants to follow in the footsteps of his fellow Vanua Levu mate.
“I like his playing style, his speed, he looks like he has fun all the time while on the field and I want to be like that. He is also a humble person.”
The Seaqaqa Central College student started playing at the age of nine and with the help of his coach Mohamed Imran he booked a place in their district team and played during the Inter-District Championship last year.
Vosagaga who has maternal links to Sasa in Macuata is the first from his family to make it to a national squad and is also the youngest player in the team.
The Sunil Kumar-coached side will face Samoa in its first OFC Under-17 Championship next Thursday.
The match will be held at the HFC Bank Stadium at 7pm.
JoelleJay (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you JoelleJay. I agree that this source is woefully short of WP:SIGCOV. I'm definitely still a delete !vote. Jogurney (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most "significant" fact is simply his debut in the youth team, followed by some very brief facts about his background and aspirations, with no in-depth discussion about any of these things (thus not even close for GNG, let alone SUSTAINED). This is not surprising since the subject is only 15. Given that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, we should let other dedicated outlets cover his potential rise, and consider creating a page when coverage of that becomes both substantial and significant. Avilich (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the coverage shown is enough for GNG – especially since we're more strict on those who are young, and this one's only 15. I'd be alright with draftification, although I think it'd probably be several years before Vosagaga has a chance at being notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is WP:TOOSOON. I think JoelleJay's analysis of references also helps establish that there's not enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the other delete rationales. This person does not meet WP:GNG. And certainly not WP:YOUNGATH. The keep statements in the initial run show a clear lack of understanding of WP:GNG.T v x1 22:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There appears to be some claim to notability based on sources, but on the other hand, WP:FOOTY and WP:TOOSOON are issues to consider. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:45, 14 March 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Mol

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find english language sources establishing notability. The only academic English sources I can find discussing him are about the racist media coverage in Poland. There are a handful of contemporaneous english news articles about the HIV case, but nothing that establishes notability.

The article was created by an account that was indeffed for POV pushing [17]. And it was already deleted once before [18]. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 18:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Poetry, Discrimination, Cameroon, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article may have many issues, but passing WP:GNG is not one of them. Sources don't have to be academic, or even in English. There are many sources listed on the article, and the Polish Wikipedia has more. I sampled a few and found non-trivial coverage here from Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) and here from Gazeta Wyborcza - both mainstream Polish newspapers. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the peer reviewed paper I found talking about the unreliable coverage of the case is specifically about those two papers. [19]. Have a look at the talk page for how it's influenced the discourse on-site. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 14:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see anything in the PDF to indicate the sources for this article are unreliable. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:GNG, [s]ources do not have to be available online or written in English. If the study you cite is indeed peer-reviewed, that would be another source that contributes towards passing WP:GNG/WP:NBASIC here. His charges at the time were also covered by AFP, His death appears to have been covered in national media in Poland, and he continues to get significant media coverage through the present day ([20], [21]). His case also appears to be a fairly standard case that's used in examination of criminal law around intentionally infecting people with HIV ([22]). This also isn't a case of WP:1E, given that there is also significant coverage of his activism that was published prior to his arrest. There's plenty enough to write an article about here, so deletion for failing to meet the relevant notability criterion is out of the question. Complaints about content are answered by WP:DEL-CONTENT, which notes that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. The paper helps notability. Also I didn't notice that most of the media coverage came after that first deletion. I won't object if this gets closed early as a 'keep'. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 20:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources found by Red-tailed hawk and Barnards.tar.gz seem to be okay.- GizzyCatBella🍁 03:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. In any case, sourcing does not have to be in the English language, so the nomination is based on a false premise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 15 March 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. Anyone is free to start an RM discussion at any time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First Amendment audits

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

Non-notable use of a term that is limited to a few web channels or youtube videos. No usage of the term in RS in Gnews, does not appear to have caught on. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Conspiracy theories, Law, Social science, and United States of America. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Police. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep if the only rationale is the name. Even a quick scan of the headlines in the references section would indicate that the term is commonly used in RS to describe this activity, despite originating from the practitioners themselves. See Washington Post, LA Times, and the numerous local news sources cited on the page that all use this term. Even if this name shouldn't be used, it should be a discussion for a move request, not an AfD.

Yeeno (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This has useful information for an increasingly common thing with lowering American public opinion on the police force and officials. If you think the name is bad, then it can be changed. Sorry if anyone disagrees with this. Have a good day. Tvshowoflife (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear non-trivial coverage in sources such as the Washington Post, Daily Dot, LA Times… Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yeeno and Barnards.tar.gz. Coverage is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. No objection to a rename, as suggested above. Sal2100 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:RS coverage is WP:INDEPTH and establishes subject notability as a stand alone topic per WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:47, 14 March 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sagent Pharmaceuticals

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

Contested PROD, so this is the next step. Another editor commented on the taIk page that they don't see how this passes WP:NCORP. I don't see enough independent RS in the article as this time.

Of the Google search, I see a lot of non-independent sources, as well as recruitment sites. I admittedly don't know anything about the other sources that come up. ArcAngel (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ArcAngel (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sagent Pharmaceuticals is a company in Schaumburg IL. The citations and page are all valid and speaks to what the company does. Why would you delete the page? 4.14.10.194 (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3 of the references in the article, while they may be valid, are not independent of the subject. The goal here is for the article to gain enough reliable sources to pass WP:NCORP. ArcAngel (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are no longer a publicly traded company, there are often not enough articles written about us to have outside sources. We do not do prese releases and articles are generally not written about us. 4.14.10.194 (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there may also be WP:COI issues. JMWt (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am the head of Marketing. We are not publishing anything that isn't non factual. No opinions. Just general information about the company. 4.14.10.194 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a potential issue. It is probably worth you looking at WP:COIEDIT. JMWt (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:NCORP. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I said elsewhere, it seems WP:NCORP is not met. I have looked rather extensively, and while I have found this article, "Down But Not Out: Nichi-Iko Hives Off Sagent, Exits North America" (which is more about Nichi-Iko), on the Pharma Intelligence website, most of the other online mentions are either (1) press releases from the company (mostly about company acquisitions), (2) clear repetitions of company press release, (3) mentions of voluntary recalls, or (4) glancing mentions of Sagent in articles about something else. I find a lack of significant, independent coverage from secondary sources. (Not relevant to the question of notability, but glaringly annoying: the misapprehension by what appears to be multiple Sagent employees that it is their page and needs to have the "right" information about "our company".) — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam and a notable corporation. Look, in 2023, everyone knows we are not a free web host for a business. To argue that there's nothing wrong, when even ordinary readers know otherwise, is untenable. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 15 March 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 Harry Seidler (briefly) and redirect. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North Apartments

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

No refs on the page for many years. I see some RS which mention the development but don't see anything much which would count towards the GNG. JMWt (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Australia. JMWt (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this one. Just a run of the mill residential building. Fails WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though it certainly doesn't look "run of the mill" and is created by a well known architect. However, there's not even the slightest indication of news or book coverage that might meet WP:GNG requirements. The Seidler website doesn't mention it winning any accolades. Sufficient for it to be listed and described briefly in the Harry Seidler article. Sionk (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced for 16 years. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable development that fails GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect partial merger to Harry Seidler.Djflem (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect partial merger to Harry Seidler per Djflem. Seidler is a notable and extremely well recognised architect in Australia, and this work would be an entirely appropriate addition to his page. Cabrils (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and partial Merger with Harry Seidler would be the best choice, since he himself is notable and this apartment building is part of his work. TH1980 (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and smerge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 15 March 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Ahammed Muneer Ahdal Ahsani

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

He has a role in a student federation and is also a PR person in Muhimmathul Muslimeen Education Centre. He lack SIGCOV. Mvqr (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kerala. Mvqr (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes, he is the finance secretary of sunni student federation Thabsheerkaja (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the roles claimed in the article are not ones that would automatically mean notability, nor is there significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since 2007, we have had a strong consensus that student government leaders are not automatically notable. In 2023, to argue otherwise is specious. Bearian (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. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhaan Rajput

AfDs for this article:

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

Bringing this here for discussion as, while it's not a G4, it does not appear the factors have changed from the first two AfDs. Sourcing is thin in quality, and it does not appear he meets N:ACTOR. Star Mississippi 14:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Star Mississippi 14:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or draftify). He has had something like "in depth coverage" in independent reliable sources, but the articles seem to have been written to promote shows that he is making or is going to make: The Times of India,^{28 January 2022} the Hindustan Times,^{11 February 2022} and the Free Press Journal.^{9 August 2021} It odd that there are no reviews of his films and TV series. Doesn't anyone watch them? Or are they so unnotable that nobody writes about them? Most of the articles cited are amazingly short, so the citation list looks more impressive than it is. If someone wants this article in mainspace they should provide citations to reliable sources that critically reviewed his films/TV/web series. They should also have a go at writing articles about films/series he has been in.

Some of the "facts" in the article are questionable - the January 2022 Times of India article says that the Antariksh "series is going to be one of the country’s first space fiction show that will see the actor playing the part of an astronaut.", whereas the Wikipedia article on Ruhaan Rajput makes an uncited claim that it was released in 2019. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:53, 8 March 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 Don McLean discography#Compilation albums. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I Love You So (Don McLean album)

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

Compilation album by a very notable musician, full of highly notable songs (that debuted on other albums) and named after a highly notable hit-single, but as far as I can determine from searches on GBooks, Newspapers.com, and the internet archive, there just hasn't been even a single review of this compilation album, much less the kind of coverage that would pass WP:NALBUM. The album did not chart in the UK nor in the US - are there other markets in might have charted in? Maybe, but I can't find any record of that.
I would accept a redirect to Don McLean discography#Compilation albums as an ATD but I hesitate to do this undiscussed because this appears potentially controversial. FOARP (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs. FOARP (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Don McLean discography#Compilation albums: based on the lack of coverage both FOARP and I have found. Even if there was charting to find outside of the US and UK, I doubt it'd be enough for convincing notability, and it could be easily squeezed into that discography table anyway. QuietHere (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per QuietHere. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Don McLean discography#Compilation albums: The album fails to meet WP:NALBUM, the article is basically just a track list, and the article is entirely unsourced. Tag with r from album after redirecting. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as no seperate references seen Christopheronthemove (talk) 19:27, 10 March 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marzena Ozarek Szilke

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

An h-index of 2 makes it very unlikely that WP:PROF is met. There was a flurry of media coverage about the discovery of what was claimed to be the first pregnant mummy, but other researchers have published papers stating that it was not pregnant and nor was it the first pregnant mummy either. I can't find any other sources which would merit us having an article. SmartSE (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and Poland. SmartSE (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough in-depth coverage outside of flashy (and arguably bogus) preggo mummy research. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Egypt. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Weak citation index, with no other sourcing found, not passing PROF. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not meet any of the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. She is known only for one thing - the pregnant mummy.

JamesKH76 (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notabilityNocturnal781 (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All sources focus not on the subject of the article, but projects with which they have been involved - also fails criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. Jguglielmin (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If someone wants to use some of the text from this article to start a page about the Warsaw Mummy Project I'd support a redirect there. pburka (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article subject has insufficient coverage by WP:RS to support any claim to WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and consensus is a redirect would not be helpful Star Mississippi 01:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point-accessibility operators for temporal logic

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

WP:Original research. The user who created the page identifies as the author of the article in which the concept of point-accessibility operators in this sense was introduced for the first time, and on which the page is largely based on. The article itself was published in 2021 and has no citations. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Temporal logic maybe (it’s borderline), but it’s certainly not independently notable. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be a very useful redirect, since the title is quite complicated and the page is an orphan. —Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable logical operator, and deleting it isn't anyone's loss because it was copied from an open-access paper anyway. Might deserve a mention on temporal logic#Temporal operators, but the author being its inventor also makes it verge on promotion. Would not be useful as a redirect either. small jars tc 09:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find notability as a criterion of the deletion quite strange, for the extension I present is quite notable: PA-operators are able to express the antique statistical operators, Priorian operators (both for linear and branching systems), and of course all particular examples of Von Wright's operators. If it helps, the article could be renamed as Temporal Operators. I intended to add definitions of the earlier operators to the article. Wikieditor 247 (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a specific definition of what notability means, here: WP:GNG Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The presented temporal operator schema appears quite notable, as they can be applied in defining earlier operators. Moreover, point-accessibility appears quite natural and handy, compared to Priorian operators for branching systems. I think it is important to share this original idea of Von Wright, which has been developed by Styrman, in wikipedia. Salviati-II (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Salviati-II, could you please take a look at WP:COWORKER and disclose any connection if relevant. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I can see that defining Priorians in terms of PAOs might be more informative than defining PAOs as a generalisation of Priorians, but they are still not notable because they do not have enough coverage in independent sources ("notable" really means "noted"). As for Von Wright, diachronic modalities don't seem any more popular. If you think it's worthwhile you can add a mention of them to the temporal logic article. small jars tc 19:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines. No prejudice to recreating the article in the future when and if it does. PianoDan (talk) 19:48, 15 March 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Schnell

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and with low citation counts and an h-Index of 6, does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Was also tagged for COI by Lectonar. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep passes WP:NAUTHOR given that he wrote books that have multiple reviews which I found in a couple of minutes: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. However the article needs some cleanup and should not read like a CV. --hroest 15:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if we we add the books' reviews - it would then pass WP:AUTHOR as mentioned above!

JamesKH76 (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Hannes Röst. I'd like to maybe see some translations of the titles of his various works and I'd like to see some sources added to his biography.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are other sources easily found. The one university source relied on here is significant coverage but not altogether independent. Moonraker (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The degree of coverage indicates that the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY thresholds specified in WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOLAR, and WP:NAUTHOR. Deletion could be considered if the subject wasn’t notable, however, as I have detailed above the subject has demonstrable notability. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Unless someone adds the appropriate cites, this does not meet WP:HEY as I understand. Willing to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 15 March 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 independence of the sources has been refuted and as such GNG is not met. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert James Diamond

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

He gets lots of mentions, but simply not enough in-depth coverage to show he meets WP:GNG, and I can't see how they meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) keep I disagree, without having access to one of the main sources of the article "Comollatti, Jane (2012). Antonio Comollatti & Ann Reed: Early settlers of Duaringa" it is hard to evaluate whether there is significant coverage or not. Given that the article mentions pp 14-25 it seems that there is at least 10 pages of material on this person in this book. It also seems like the author of the article (a very active editor) did put in the work to properly source the article and aggregate sources both online and offline to put this together, so I would give this the benefit of the doubt. Clearly a borderline case but I dont see any reason to delete the article (except pedantry). --hroest 15:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hannes Röst, that Comollatti piece is not independent as it's by a relative of Diamond. JoelleJay (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Larded with in-depth personal detail and primary sources, making it difficult to discern whether there is any in-depth coverage or whether there is anything of significance hidden somewhere in the picayune life story. Article claims "He is best known for his work in the academic field." but provides no evidence for academic notability, nor can I find any elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.There's multiple sources listed where they either talk about him or something he had said or done. Newspapers in his area seemed to value what he thought. He clearly was somebody locally. A couple of the links like the obituary aren't really relevant to the argument, but for sourcing purposes, it's good work. A lot of time, effort and care was put into this and I think the OP did a good job in writing this up. It also likely seems that more information could be found to strengthen his case further. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are few sources here that comply with the "significant coverage" required by the GNG, but all the same one or two of those is enough. Many primary or less reliable sources, but they can be relied on for simple facts. Moonraker (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article currently stands it contains no evidence of notability for this person (in academia : no significant research output mentioned, no mention of his impact in education ; in politics : nothing significant). jraimbau (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per hroest, KatoKungLee. I've also added one RS. Cabrils (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Makes not claim of significance and is essentially is a framework article built piece by piece using a whole bunch of disparate sources to represent a whole that wouldn't necessarily be what the man was like during his real life. The 1940's, 50's and 60's are not some dead period where people of note were not recorded somehow as other folk who lived have and would have done in other periods. If he was significant, it would have been much more obvious. But it's not. It just a bunch of tiny facts glued together and none of it is significant. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 21:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a GNG pass with the sources in the article, plus some sources I can't access look like possible SIGCOV (namely Antonio Comollatti & Ann Reed: Early settlers of Duaringa which mentions him on 15 pages?). BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except that source is by his cousin, about their family, and so is not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since notability appears to rest on the potential that Antonio Comollatti & Ann Reed: Early settlers of Duaringa contains SIGCOV, it's worth noting that the author, Jane Comollatti, is Diamond's cousin. This means it's not independent and it's also likely the passages mentioning him are primary accounts of him rather than secondary commentary. JoelleJay (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to a comment from Comollatti calling Diamond her cousin. JoelleJay (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little sign of the type of impact we look for in academic notability. I will comment that it is harder to assess due to his propensity to switch fields every few years, but also that this propensity makes academic impact less likely. As far as GNG notability, there is the book, which at least shows circumstantial evidence of having been written by a relative; a bunch of inappropriately-used primary sources; and glancing human interest coverage in small town local news (which WP:RS says we should use with caution). I think this is short of what we're looking for. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:35, 15 March 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-deleted under WP:CSD#G5. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anukul Charan Munshi

AfDs for this article:

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

Still fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. Wixsite and Arthive are user-generated so clearly unacceptable. Munshianay Chollis Purush does not seem to exist. Massive claims to notability made in the article but no evidence to support them. Please review the previous discussion to gain context before !voting if you can. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've just stumbled upon Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srijon Munshi which may be relevant here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 8 March 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 China Northern Airlines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

China Northern Swan Airlines

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. No sources available with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from I RS. No objection to a redirect to parent company if consensus exists.

This editor has had 11 articles moved to draftspace, and 10 articles rejected at AFC, 2 speedy deletes and 3 AFDs. // Timothy :: talk 11:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a draft. CARLITOAHUISA (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to China Northern Airlines, which acquired Swan Airlines in 1996, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Here are sources I found about the subject:
1. "Sunbase plane syndicate set to take off". South China Morning Post. 1993-05-30. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.
  The article notes: "Sunbase was hardly known in Hongkong until last October, when the company announced it was to set up a Harbin-based air carrier, Swan Airlines, with several mainland enterprises. Plans called for Swan Airlines to be operating in March, with international flights to Hongkong, Russia, Japan and South Korea. However, Mr Gao said the launch had been postponed until November. He said initially the airline would fly to Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen. Although reluctant to reveal further details, he said Swan would invest 10 billion yuan (about HK$13.49 billion) in 30 aircrafts by the year 2000 and planned to have 300 pilots by 1995."
2. "China puts on the squeeze". FlightGlobal. 1996-12-31. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.
  The article notes: "The completed acquisitions are China Northern's takeover of Swan Airlines and China Northwest's purchase of Nanjing Airlines."
3. Fan, Zhang (2018). The Institutional Evolution of China: Government vs Market. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78471-691-2. Retrieved 2023-03-13 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "It also cancelled the licences of several airlines and allowed small airlines to be taken over by larger carriers, e.g. Swan Airlines by China Northern and Fujian Airlines by Xiamen Airlines."
4. Zhu, Weiguang 朱伟光; Li, Dapeng 李大; Li, Shaoju 李少举 (2001-01-04). "《光明日报》登上北航天鹅航空公司航班" ["Guangming Daily" boarded the flight of Beishang Swan Airlines]. Guangming Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "China Northern Swan Airlines is a joint-stock air transport enterprise established along with the reform and development of the civil aviation industry. Based in Harbin International Airport, the company is mainly engaged in domestic and foreign air passenger and cargo transportation, and also operates aviation catering, tourism and other businesses. At present, there are 4 MD90 aircrafts and 4 MD82 aircrafts, and 46 domestic routes and 7 international routes have been opened to 45 large and medium-sized cities at home and abroad."
5. "那些年，消失的航空公司" [Those years, airlines that disappeared] (in Chinese). NetEase. 2020-07-25. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Swan Air was established in 1993 and is headquartered in Harbin. In 1997, Beihang Heilongjiang Branch and Swan Airlines jointly established Beikong Swan Airlines. Later, due to the reorganization of civil aviation, Beihang was merged into China Southern. In 2004, the Civil Aviation Administration of China approved the cancellation of Beihang Goose Airlines Co., Ltd., and agreed to resume the operation of China Southern Heilongjiang Branch."
6. Dougan, Mark (2016). Beauchamp, Edward (ed.). A Political Economy Analysis of China's Civil Aviation Industry. New York: Routledge. p. 238. ISBN 978-1-317-79447-9. Retrieved 2023-03-13 – via Google Books.
  The book notes in the China Northern row of the table: "acquired Swan Airlines by 1996".
Cunard (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No indication of significance. Fails WP:NCORP and the references above are routine coverage that doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS. The editor has now been blocked. scope_creep^Talk 16:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to China Northern Airlines I agree that the company fails WP:NCORP, but I don't see why a redirect would be inappropriate. Jumpytoo Talk 22:24, 15 March 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Cavaletti

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

Clear case of WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS, absolutely no in-depth coverage at all, just some short promotional blurbs, all relating to the single event. Very similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas and Mary Beth Meyer. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to breaking WP:Before/WP:DAN rules - I've been around here for 3 years. After never having interaction with this user, we have met 14 times around a month after I rejected the user's attempt to draftify an article. This will be Onel's 6th Afd Nomination attempt on me this week. The user publicly claimed yesterday, "Too late, this same editor also has Christian Cavaletti, and Jackie Miley, and Harry Sperl, which I'm also probably going to nominate." before making this attempt in this thread - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_and_Mary_Beth_Meyer. This breaks wikipedia WP:BEFORE rules under Wikipedia:DAN, which completely nullifies the attempt. It also breaks WP:DLC, WP:REVENGE, WP:GAME, WP:MEAT, WP:WITCHHUNT and others. Beyond that, the article meets WP:GNG and has in-depth coverage. I'll see everyone later today when Onel attempts the same thing for other articles in some attempt to secure WP:WINNING. I am sorry that everyone has to have their time wasted over personal issues.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, this does look like WP:1E. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple WP:DAN rules were broken before nomination, nullifying it and the user continued to break rules by bringing up other articles that aren't related to this to WP:MEAT.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, WP:DAN means quite literally that people !voting in the AfD shouldn't attack the nominator, i.e. in this case you should't attack Onel5969. Which is exactly what you are doing. Fram (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess is that they ar confusing nominator with article creator and are claiming that the AFD is an attack against them since it doesn’t make any sense thr other way.--70.24.249.205 (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. I find the above keep vote unconvincing and it fails to address the rationale provided. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. We don't need a Wikipedia entry for every person who gets some inane, inconsequential record. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another WP:BLP1E for a Guinness World record holder, and again, they don't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:16, 15 March 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. CSD G12 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines Certified Public Accountancy Licensure Examination

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

Unsourced OR essay. Subject lacks SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from I RS. // Timothy :: talk 09:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is considered that it obtains original research, and forgot to find sources on this article. CastJared (talk) 11:11, 8 March 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. Sandstein 12:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dera

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

This page purports to be an article but it is entirely unsourced. If it were a disambiguation page it would be cluttered with invalid WP:Partial title matches. It is not useful to the reader in any substantive way. There is also a disambiguation page, currently at DERA; I suggest that page is moved to the Dera title. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Asia. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. I came across this the other day and noticed it but didn't get around to doing anything about it.
Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move. This is a common toponymic element, on par with most others desribed by the articles in Category:Place name element etymologies. I don't have the time to look for sources now, so I can't say if the topic will pass WP:GNG. Why not just move it to Dera (placename element) (as it's clearly not the primary topic), and, if there are any issues with the content, blank and redirect to the general article Oikonyms in Western and South Asia (which has a brief mention of the topic)? – Uanfala (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and India. – Uanfala (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I ended up here looking for an article I created many years ago named "Dera (woreda)", which I thought was satisfactorily distinct. However, I find that a few years back it was moved first to "Dera, Amhara (woreda)", then made into a redirect to this page. WTF is going on? I fixed this silliness, but I'm worried that some well-meaning editor will change it all back. -- llywrch (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for that must have been the existence of another woreda with the same name: Dera, Oromia. – Uanfala (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Afghanistan, and Iran. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like it wants to be a WP:broad-concept article, but it's unreferenced. Another possible marker to move it away from the base title could be dera (toponymy). --Joy (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ultimately it's a partial match for a wide range of places and concepts; the search system is better for that. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Unless a suitable redirect can be found.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:47, 17 March 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. Sandstein 21:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Belarus

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

"Category:Belarusian rulers" has been deleted as anachronistic. The CfD reached an agreement that "Belarus" as we know it today didn't exist until the 20th century, and as Marcocapelle argued (successfully in my opinion), the princes of Polotsk, Minsk, Turov and the Grand Duke of Lithuania aren't considered to be Belarusian except in nationalistic propaganda. That means all entries up to 1795 are to be deleted; it might be useful to move some content from List of rulers of Belarus#Rurikid Belarus to Prince of Polotsk before we do so. What remains is little more than a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of List of national leaders of Belarus (which should probably be renamed List of heads of state of Belarus); we might move some content from the former to the latter if useful. The reason why I'm not proposing this as a "merge" but a "delete" is because of the vagueness of the term "ruler". We should no longer use the term "ruler" to lump very different types of positions/jobs together. (See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 25#Category:Rulers, and search for my "Thanks for chiming in" comment for more commentary on Belarus). The now-deleted "Category:Belarusian rulers" also excluded any non-monarchs, so all 20th- and 21st-century presidential/parliamentary republican heads of state wouldn't fit in it anyway. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "national leader" versus "head of state": The opening sentence of List of national leaders of Belarus contains a statement which argues against the idea that some of the people mentioned weren't "head of state", and thus the article shouldn't be renamed List of heads of state of Belarus: ...including its presidents both before and after the Soviet era, and the Soviet leaders themselves, who, unlike the Presidents, were not formal Heads of State. Should we take that seriously? The titles are "chairman", "executive secretary" and "first secretary", not "leader", let alone "national leader'. Especially in a Soviet Communist context, which is explicitly internationalist and anti-nationalist, "national leader" doesn't make much sense. "head of state" seems perfectly fine to me. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Belarus. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article that is needed is "list of national leaders of Belarus". The useful bit of list of rulers of Belarus is a content fork; i.e. it describes the same subject.
I suppose you could have a list of rulers of Belarus that included the rulers of the territory that is currently within the borders of the present nation state. But if you were going to do that, you would have the de facto rulers of the countries concerned: Tsarist Russia, then Poland and the U.S.S.R. in parallel, followed by the U.S.S.R. followed by the present nation-state of Belarus. A history of Belarus is a better way to handle that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to list of national leaders of Belarus. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tarja Kallio-Tamminen

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

The article fails WP:BIO and WP:SCHOLAR. She has published one book via a reputable Finnish publisher and edited two other books. There is no evidence of these books having had a significant impact. She has not held any relevant position in academia, and mainly works as a yoga teacher, and has published articles with fringe theorists Arto Annila and Tuomo Suntola. She was the president of the Green Cultural Association (in finnish: Vihreä sivistysliitto), for 2-3 years, but that association does not seem notable. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Philosophy, and Finland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The corresponding fi.wp article has one good source, a Helsingin Sanomat book review of the subject's book Kvanttilainen todellisuus [28] (paywalled). The others are either about someone else (her husband), closely associated with her, or otherwise unreliable. For example the Tieteessä tapahtuu article is authored by the subject themself [29] (link to archive.org). I can't find any further RS-coverage from casual Google searches. In total, no evidence that the subject passes either WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOLAR. No sources in the article which are independent of the subject; notability is not established by a single book review. Not turned anything else up in my own search for sources. WJ94 (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not pass the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. The one book does not seem to have been significantly reviewed so WP:AUTHOR does not work either.

JamesKH76 (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article subject doesn’t satisfy notability conditions in WP:NSCHOLAR, WP:NACADEMIC, or WP:NAUTHOR. If any of these were met, there would be a potential case against deletion. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:56, 14 March 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!} 08:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Logan (DALO)

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

Promo BLP, lacks proper sourcing, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from I RS. Article creator also uploaded "Headshot of The Artist Daniel Logan (DALO)" to commons for article. // Timothy :: talk 07:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation sources for article have been updated to fall within the Wikipedia guidelines. The two qualifying sources featuring the artist have been updated for proper citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtSounds (talk • contribs) 10:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, it would help if you would explain how you know the subject of the article. Also, could you clarify if you took the photo in the article yourself or did you receive permission from the subject to use the photo. Thanks, // Timothy :: talk 10:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN. I do not see why we are here, when this is a candidate for Speedy Deletion. NN and looks like advertisement, and maybe COI? -- Alexf^(talk) 11:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexf: I see you are a longtime wiki admin. Can you explain COI and NN? Also Im afraid to create any wiki pages for artists and waste my time. Do state and local newspapers and magazines qualify as notable sources? I have Colorado and European newspaper publications for other artists. I’ve asked some classical musicians to send me pictures and news articles for wiki. Are those typically allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtSounds (talk • contribs) 12:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue: I know the owners of the ColoradoSprings venue that supports and features new artists and wrote about Mr.Logan. They said he was also just featured in a local magazine for artists as well. I asked his wife (who attended the show) to send me his headshot.

I have some other Colorado Springs artists and musicians to post on Wikipedia as well and their publications are from Denver and local newspapers but am now unsure if I can use this for new Wikipedia articles. Please advise!

Ive posted other artists (particularly musicians) under other wikinames before with similar sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtSounds (talk • contribs) 11:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should consider submitting new articles at WP:AFC for review until you gain experience. They will be very helpful if you ask them questions about sources. There is also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where you can post sources and ask questions regarding notability. You can also request help/advice anytime at WP:TEAHOUSE. Greetings from Los Angeles // Timothy :: talk 12:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You stated "I asked his wife (who attended the show) to send me his headshot." The photo you uploaded at [30] indicates this is your own work, that you are the copyright holder, and that you have legally released all rights to the photo under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. This means anyone can use this photo for any purpose, commercial or personal. // Timothy :: talk 12:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I thought having permission to use the picture counted for that. Ok! No worries, I’ll learn with your suggestions! Greetings from Germany! Thank you for your help :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtSounds (talk • contribs) 13:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable artist. "Air Force" refers to the US Air Force apparently, though the article appears to be too-USA focused to make that clear. I don't find sourcing beyond alumni newspapers. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable artist and is written as a promo. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a Denver based contributor, I can perhaps provide you with an easy criterium for notability for artists in the region - Does the Denver Art Museum hold at least one of their pieces? If not, then they are most likely to end up here, in the Articles For Deletion. MNewnham (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ARTIST WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely promotional article for a subject that fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:22, 15 March 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 under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Brothers Travel Pte Ltd

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

Promo article, eg. Chan Brothers Travel Pte Ltd#Connect With Us. Sources are all promotional, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from I RS. // Timothy :: talk 07:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Timothy,

Thank you for your suggestion. I'm new here to write the article so that I need to learn more and get used to with it. Connect with us might seem promo article, I will fix that thing right aways. Thank you for spending some time to read my articles. Soe phoo (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it would help if you explain how you know about the article subject. // Timothy :: talk 07:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under criterion G11 - edit summary states that the content of the article was approved directly by the director of this company, awards and media section is longer than the rest of the article combined Jguglielmin (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This is a G11 material. I do not see any need for an AfD. Hitro talk 08:01, 8 March 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 World's Greatest Athlete. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World's greatest athlete

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

random OR disambig page that nothing links to Gugrak (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The World's Greatest Athlete and tag as {{R from miscapitalisation}}. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The World's Greatest Athlete and tag as {{R from miscapitalisation}}. I see no evidence that the title is in common usage for Olympic decathlon/heptathlon champions and "The best, or most successful, living sportsperson" is totally subjective WP:OR. As such, the only encyclopedic thing a user would be searching for would be the film. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The World's Greatest Athlete: Seems like an obvious unnecessary disambiguation page. Being the reigning Olympic decathlon or Olympic heptathlon champion does not make one the world's greatest athlete. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The World's Greatest Athlete: this disambiguation page does not constitute original research. Some basic research (or even reading the linked pages) will reveal that (see [31],[32],[33][34]). That said, the hatnote on the film page is sufficient to provide the effective links because it's unlikely that this target will be internally linked from articles. SFB 17:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I make this suggestion after much research and reflection upon all available options. The best outcome would be to redirect to the page The World's Greatest Athlete as a suitable target. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:58, 14 March 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!} 08:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Govt. Senior Secondary School Katawar

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

BEFORE reveals nothing much. This is a school and needs to satisfy WP:NORG criteria or WP:GNG, which it does not. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources in article are directory style listings, dead links, government websites, nothing from I RS with SIGCOVV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 07:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 8 March 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!} 08:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Robi

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

Couldn't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and subject doesn't appear to meet any WP:NACADEMIC criteria. Article was PRODed and deleted way back in 2010, and subsequently recreated. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Computing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see significant coverage either. --Mvqr (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage. --hroest 15:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence he passes WP:ACADEMIC criteria.

JamesKH76 (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of satisfying either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article subject doesn’t satisfy WP:NOTABILITY conditions per WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC, let alone WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 03:00, 14 March 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!} 08:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Beneby

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find sufficient in-depth, independent coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bahamas. JTtheOG (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing close to constituting SIGCOV that I could uncover. Only one real "hit" in a local news outlet here where he's just answering an interview question. Everything else is just trivial squad announcements. He's only played five competitive international games as well, so I think it's safe to say that there's no real chance of significant offline sources either. SmackJam (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's been here for 4 years and is only being deleted due to new rules. The article isn't bothering or hurting anything and is just removing useful information from the site.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be different if there was any verifiable information out there on him, but there just isn't. Hell, I wrote the vast majority of the article and even I can put my hand up and say this isn't contributing much at all to the encyclopedia. It's more bloat than anything, and all of its useful information is already archived at the Wayback Machine. I'm as big an inclusionist as the next guy but this was already a borderline pass of the old NFOOTY so I don't think anyone needs to lose sleep over it going. SmackJam (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that WP:ITSHARMLESS is a very, very poor argument for keeping. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with SmackJam's honest assessment of an article that they essentially wrote (massive respect to anyone that can accept that an article that they wrote fails WP:GNG). I couldn't find any decent sources myself. Nothing found in ProQuest as well as search engines that others probably already checked. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:SIGCOV exists, clear fail of WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 19:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking into this myself in some depth, I find no WP:SIGCOV to warrant inclusion under any notability claim per WP:GNG. If WP:SIGCOV were satisfied and WP:GNG met, I would be more inclined to support keeping. Shawn Teller (talk) 03:02, 14 March 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!} 04:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist Turkey Party

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 20:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey. Kadı Message 20:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I managed to find quite a bit of coverage and updated the article with a few references. It's a weak keep because almost all of them are in Turkish and it's entirely possible that there are other factors making them not notable that I can't read. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Panyd, we have a bit of a problem here: this party was not founded by Meral Akşener. The sources only say that after getting expelled from the MHP in 2017, Akşener was going to create her own party with rumours about it being called the Nationalist Turkey party. Per the archive of Ref 1 by the Court of Cassation in the article, the Nationalist Turkey Party was already founded in 2011 (p. 4), and Akşener created Good Party instead. So the topic of the article should be the 2011 party, while Refs 2, 3 and 4 are about the rumoured party which in a way never came to be. ~Styyx^Talk? 09:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is what happens when I don't speak Turkish! I was taking that from the news articles Google translated and brief mentions in other places (Legal Monitor Worldwide which I didn't include and Armenpress). So is what you're saying that there are **two** Nationalist Turkey Parties and that one of them is established and one of them is just rumoured to exist? And that the references I've found are about one that doesn't **actually** exist, just was perhaps going to? --Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 10:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much yes. This is a source about Akşener denying that she was going to create a party (April 2017) after those rumours appeared. Then later in October she created the other party. However, the Armenpress source is about the actual 2011 party. ~Styyx^Talk? 14:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep Appears to be sufficient Turkish-language coverage to meet WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811, Do you know Turkish? I am Turkish, and I can easily say that this article is not notable. Kadı Message 20:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced by the discussion above that this party is not notable. Struck through former comment. Delete. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Soft deletiion is not an option. DId you mean to cast a vote Styyx?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Apart from a single source, the references found during this AfD are about a different party that never came to be. My own search yields no additional results, so without multiple references this doesn't pass the GNG nor NCORP. ~Styyx^Talk? 19:56, 12 March 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!} 08:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HiDE Kawada

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

A quick Google search didn't reveal any independent sources for this musician, who doesn't seem to meet any of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. The article's primary author is Color365 (talk · contribs), whose edits are almost exclusively confined to this page. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a shame, considering he has worked on a decent amount of notable stuff (and I am always looking to expand the project's overview of J-pop). But sadly, the only sources I was able to find are incidental mentions as a producer or press releases. Ping me if more sources are found. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:54, 8 March 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!} 08:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marlin Wire

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

Just another company, making products and getting some mentions of their numbers and stuff in some publications--but it's all regular run of the mill kind of coverage. Please see the history for a chunk of material that suggested notability (and possibly COI editing), but had no secondary sourcing. Update: obvious COI editors in the history include User:Marlin99, User:Aratner1, User:Eguard, User:Marlin Steel--so yeah, my hunch was correct. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They've purchased another company, but that's about all the coverage there is in Gnews. Not meeting CORP. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 8 March 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. Further discussion is necessary concerning the inclusion criteria for this list, but there is a strong consensus to keep some version of it. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of bodyguards

AfDs for this article:

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

Unclear what the purpose of this article is or the criteria for notability of bodyguards. If there is such a thing, this list should be substantially longer. Personally I think it fails WP:NOT and should get the boot. Kazamzam (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate list that should be a category if it’s really necessary at all. Dronebogus (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and trim): It should be restricted to people that were famous for being bodyguards (e.g., Walter H. Thompson), not famous people who happen to be bodyguards (e.g., Brodus Clay). If there questions that about how to discern that, that is an editing decision and not grounds for deletion. The page serves as a perfectly fine navigational page and the existence of a category does not change that per WP:NOTDUP. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and trim) per User talk:Why? I Ask suggestion. Almost everyperson in that list are not famous/notable for being bodygurad and need to be removed. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:HASPOT and works as a navigational page.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No more indiscriminate than any other list of people by profession, a perfectly acceptable topic for a list.★Trekker (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my main issue with this list is its lack of coherence. Jacqueline Kennedy's bodyguard is in the 'former police and security agents' section (should those subjects be in a list for police instead, perhaps?) whereas the bodyguards who assassinated Indira Gandhi, 21 years later, in the historic section. It's one thing to be an independently hired "bodyguard" but a number of subjects in this list were/are Secret Service or Protection Command members - presumably, these could go under those specific listings, rather than this hodgepodge list of arbitrary criteria. Kazamzam (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, that is an editing decision and deletion is not cleanup. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's one perspective - it can be used as cleanup. If the majority of subjects in this list, at present, would be better off in other categories more specific to their occupation, i.e. Secret Service agents, then the number of independent topics may be quite small and the article could warrant deletion. Kazamzam (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe we should keep it but only for notable people User:Friendlyhistorian
Keep. The topic meets WP:LISTN and page has WP:POTENTIAL. The challenge will be limiting its contents to notable people, but that in and of itself isn’t a valid justification for deletion. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:17, 15 March 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!} 04:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Minter

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

Perhaps one article from the Derbyshire Times that may satisfy GNG but not much else. Simione001 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I agree with this nomination, this is a terrible case of cite overkill of nothing more than WP:ROUTINE sources and useless sources. Govvy (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Derbyshire article plus the rest combined paint a picture that this passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It might paint a picture but it's of poor quality. Simione001 (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @Govvy:, I found [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], and [40] (100000+ views), among many more sources, including many more YouTube and podcast interviews. Clearly significant figure in non league football with ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some OK, but others are from his club. Not enough in total. Giant Snowman 21:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an of the sources I listed above are from the clubs he played for. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Das osmnezz: It seems you did a better job of finding the sources there, it's just borderline for me. Could be a weak keep, however my vote after some review of overall is basically will sit at abstain which is basic no-consensus vote, which is due to a degree of notability. Govvy (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nice mix of primary and secondary sources, especially for a player at his level.KatoKungLee (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are not acceptable for measuring notability. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. [41] is ok, but has a lot of primary aspects ("Staring down the camera lense [sic], Melvin Minter speaks with a tone...") and is in a small-town paper by a reporter exclusively dedicated to covering Chesterfield FC. Local sources should be assessed with care, and I don't think this writeup has the distance from its subject that is needed to produce an NPOV bio. [42] seems to be an interview/transaction coverage, but I can't access all of it. [43] is an interview in an official Harrogate Town AFC program booklet, clearly not independent, N. [44] is a This is Local London "young reporter" contributed essay, not an article by a staff reporter, N. [45] is a blog post from a non-independent body, obviously N. I'm not seeing GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very good mix of primary and secondary sources. Keep Cinnabon66 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are new editors getting this bizarre argument? JoelleJay (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is leaning delete, but I don't see it as clear yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the above sources do not provide enough SIGCOV to pass GNG. Carson Wentz (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. I agree that the Derbyshire Times source is reasonably good, but not enough. The other sources are trivial / routine. Jogurney (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's a lot of non-independent and unreliable content being discussed here and incorrectly used to support notability. Joelle's source assessment appears correct. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 10 March 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. Consensus is we have verification of role that meets N:POL. Sourcing to improve the article can be found after AfD Star Mississippi 01:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mire Hagi Farah Mohamed

AfDs for this article:

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

No references on the page for many years. I have no reason to believe it isn't true, but I also don't think we can have pages without references. I don't find anything which meets the GNG, which one might expect if he was a national politician in the government. JMWt (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought: we might have an issue of spelling in English (or Somali) which may be affecting the sources that can be found. JMWt (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, Africa, and Somalia. JMWt (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Somali biographies are notoriously difficult to find sources for, as access to the Internet in that country is practically nonexistent; it is also difficult as there may be different combinations of names that refer to a single subject. Cabinet ministers are generally considered to be notable via WP:NPOL, especially a high-ranking minister like finance; that said, I was not able to quickly find a source confirming this. However, I was able to find a source which confirms that he was a member of parliament in the 2000s, thu sdefinitively passing WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mm. I agree generally, however with little information that we can verify, I'm not sure how we write the page. JMWt (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re-iterating my keep !vote, I have hid the uncited extraneous biographical information and leaving only his uncited DoB-DoD, referenced service in the Somali Parliament, referenced district commissioner tenure and action he did in that office, and uncited tenure as minister of finance. This is very much an NPOL test-case, as this subject was alive recently enough that print sources likely exist, but due to the country that is involved, these print sources have not yet been digitized. Most importantly, this means there is room for expansion, as proven by the snippet I added of his tenure as district commissioner. Curbon7 (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly passes WP:NPOL as "He served as Minister of State for Fishing and Sea resources." and "became a member of the transitional government's parliament and cabinet, and he was the Finance Minister in Somalia's federal government." 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does nominator done WP:BEFORE, before nominating this to AfD. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you offering references which show any of the things you just asserted? JMWt (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and currently basic verifiability with its existence. NPOL is not clearly met as the claimed positions appear appointed. Articles have to demonstrate meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines; if they can't, they shouldn't be here. Someone has to put in the work to present sources, not just leave unreferenced content indefinitely because it's hard to do so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL doesn't say that the person should be elected for passing it. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 08:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find a single source or reference and the claims in the article about the subject cannot be verified clearly fails Wikipedia:Verifiability.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - working to verify. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I found a single reliable source, which isn't normally sufficient for WP:SIGCOV to prove he passes WP:NPOL. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to get more clear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Once more, service in a parliament, even if appointed, passes WP:NPOL. This is cited. Also cited is a previous position he's held and an action he did in that position. This is typically more than enough for a keep on basis, as his holding of high-ranking NPOL-conferring positions means WP:OFFLINE sources are expected. Due to the fact that this is Somalia, a country where roughly 2% of the population has consistent access to the internet and only around 40% is even literate, this is leaning heavily into WP:SYSTEMIC. Curbon7 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For further clarification, as far as I'm aware, a modern NPOL-passing politician has never been deleted at AfD; we presume that there is a near-certain chance that offline sources are written about these figures, even if we don't have direct online access to these sources, due to their impact on society by virtue of holding office; this is kind of the point of why it's an alternative to GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I sense that it has been verified that the subject did serve in the Transitional Federal Parliament of Somalia and would therefore pass WP:NPOL. Appointed officials are equivalent to an elected official, what matters is that the individual served in an "international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office," --Enos733 (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying - there are sources that verify service in the Somali Parliament meaning the subject does pass WP:NPOL - Enos733 (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are strong arguments for both keeping and deleting. On one hand, there does appear to be some inherent claim to notability. But on the other hand, WP:RS coverage might not meet the WP:SIGCOV threshold. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL states that there is a presumption of notability for "international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office." For national legislators, there would be official records of time in service, votes taken, and, quite likely, official speeches and there is likely media coverage of any campaign or time in office. As a community, we've accepted official records as sufficient to verify meeting the SNG, and those official sources could be used to expand the article. Curbon7 describes some of the challenges that may exist in Somalia that may make it more difficult to find sources. To me, the presumption of notability in NPOL means that the burden is to prove sources do not exist, instead of showing there are sufficient sources to keep an article. - Enos733 (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it passes WP:NPOL but we are unable to find source so I think that we should have to take help from any establish editor of Somali Wikipedia for finding sources in local libraries or in other language. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 04:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source found by Curbon7 (and now in the article) shows that the subject did serve in the Somalia Parliament. - Enos733 (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it means that this person clearly passes Wikipedia:NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 06:25, 15 March 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 programs broadcast by HGTV. Star Mississippi 01:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamas Life

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

Fails GNG. Despite running for five seasons on a relatively well known network, I cannot find any reliable, independent that discuss or review the show. The closest I found is one or two articles noting its casting calls. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I was able to locate a TV Guide source (know some editors oppose these) as well as the casting source from CountryLiving which was more profile piece than a casting notice despite the heading. Since they show has run five seasons and is still on-air I believe it has the potential more notable sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justwatchmee (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is the TV Guide source just this listing, or is there another? I'm having trouble seeing how that would establish notability combined with the single Country Living piece. Even if it may meet notability some day, it seems like it'd fall into WP:TOOSOON. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 16:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually this one. And here is the CountryLiving. And another possible. and I think the most solid I've found outside the CountryLiving here. Justwatchmee (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is just a different tab of the same listing ("Overview" v "Seasons & Episodes"). The TVovermind article might work, despite being written like a very bad high school essay and mentioning only two things about the show (namely, "As it sounds, Bahamas Life is an HGTV series about people who are planning to settle in the Bahamas." and "Bahamas Life is certainly interesting, but its very nature means that it leaves out a lot of the complexities that should be involved in something as major as moving to another country.") I can't evaluate the other link, because it's paywalled. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 02:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any sourcing for the show. A Gnewspaper search turns up the phrase, but no tv show articles. I suppose it's a weak keep. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reposting to hopefully get some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by HGTV Very generic house hunting show. Nate • (chatter) 02:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support As this will soon make it as a redirect, it will be involved. CastJared (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As not enough news references seen to support a standalone article Christopheronthemove (talk) 19:35, 10 March 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. L Faraone 06:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Watt

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, ~~Women~~, and New Zealand. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 02:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's a man CT55555(talk) 03:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (removed from women del-sort list). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 02:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lindsey Watt wasnt just an Ambassador — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2crzppul (talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True but that doesn't necessarily mean they meet the notability requirements. Could you find sources with sigcov? I could not. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while this person has a long and storied career, I can't seem to locate sigcov relating to them in either books or print. Would love to be proven wrong on this as I think eventually someone will write about this person (maybe after their passing), but I think it is too early to say they are notable. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Due to lack of coverage, this persons currently fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. According to Wiki guidelines, the article can be considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitYehor (talk • contribs) 21:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, following expansion. He played a significant role in the constitutional development of Tokelau. Also, his book on China is referenced by many academic studies of Sino–NZ relations. Paora (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources to back your claim "his book on China is referenced by many academic studies of Sino–NZ relations"? Thanks LibStar (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some PhD theses that cite the book: [46], [47], [48]. Paora (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed in New Zealand's establishment foreign affairs journal. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two minute search, sample of texts citing Watt's NZ-China relation book: New Zealand's Foreign Service: A History (2022), Unfolding History, Evolving Identity: The Chinese in New Zealand (2003), Australia and China: Partners in Asia (1993), A Handbook of China's International Relations (2012), Sovereignty Under Siege? Globalization and New Zealand (2017), The Ashgate Research Companion to Chinese Foreign Policy (2016). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there is enough significant coverage here to comply with the GNG. Clearly also a significant career, which is not what the GNG is about, but it ought to be a factor in any room for manoevre. Moonraker (talk) 00:07, 10 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quinton Carey

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find sufficient independent sourcing past passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Bahamas, and Oklahoma. JTtheOG (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I was unable to find enough evidence that the article has enough WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:BIO or WP:FOOTBALLER. However, there may be some significant coverage from sources I was unable to find. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I found no sources on Google to support only statistics references which doesn't help the situation thereby making him fail notability.Epcc12345 (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage by WP:RS to establish WP:NOTABILITY and justify inclusion. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/health-focused-food-brand-lilgoodness-aims-to-achieve-turnover-of-rs-500-crore-by-fy26/articlesh.ow/95914994.cms

[2] ttps://www.indianretailer.com/interview/retail-people/new-commerce/how-lilgoodness-healthifying-kids-snacking-segment

[3] ttps://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/food/health-food-maker-lilgoodness-announces-launch-of-disney-marvel-inspired-products/articleshow/96174049.cms

[4] ttps://www.indianretailer.com/news/lil-goodness-ropes-in-namrata-shirodkar-and-her-daughter-sitara-for-an-exclusive-brand-association.n14176

[5] ttps://www.indianretailer.com/article/retail-business/consumer-trends/what-makes-healthy-snacking-next-big-segment

[6] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/millet-brands-expected-to-gain-from-budgets-promotion/articleshow/97588458.cms

[7] ttps://www.hindustantimes.com/lifestyle/health/world-diabetes-day-2022-parenting-tips-on-portion-control-mindful-eating-to-avoid-diabetes-in-teenagers-101668321671542.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]