Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 07 May 09 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Lhotecký[edit]

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

With only one match at the professional level, he is certainly not notable. FromCzech (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was used as a substitute in fully professional Czech First League match
Source - official webpage of Fortuna Liga: https://www.fortunaliga.cz/zapas/6644-brn-olo Pospeak (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. One mention in an article about a game and two primary ELs. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  20:55, 15 May 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 2006 United States Senate election in Washington#Democratic primary. Unclear whether first V-A has been verified, nor whether that would constitute notability. History remains under the redirect should facts change. Star Mississippi 02:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Tran[edit]

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

Minor candidate for office. Fails WP:BIO, only media coverage is in the context of being a long-shot candidate. Chajusong (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was all set to redirect this article but then noticed that this is the 2nd AFD for this page. So, I'm relisting to ensure adequate consideration of its fate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Has anyone checked out if any other sources confirm the first Vietnamese-American to run for U.S. Senate claim? If it's true, this article may be worth keeping. If it's not true, then I'd probably vote delete. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went over all the Senate races from 1996 to 2004, and did not find any Vietnamese-american (or at least anyone with a Vietnamese-sounding last name). It's not definitive, but Hong does seem to be the first Vietnamese-american to run for the Senate. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy University Dubai Campus[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NSCHOOL which requires for profit educational institutions to pass WP:ORGCRIT. A google search yielded zero coverage in reliable secondary sources over the first three pages. There were however, no shortage of hits, virtually all of a promotional nature. Much of the article is unsourced. What sourcing there is, is very thin and mostly primary/affiliated sources. Many ref/cite links are dead. Article is so nakedly promotional that one could argue it should be deleted on that basis alone. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Found no coverage that can pass WP:GNG. Not much can be said about the subject other than it exists. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tutwakhamoe. Also, the page on the campus's parent university has now been deleted, so this article is almost certainly not notable. --Tserton (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Chishti[edit]

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

Very few references, and the person is only mentioned in a list of other hundreds of disciples. No sign of independent notability. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom (i will change my mind if someone can show me significant coverage in reliable sources about this person). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The 2010 book by Ismail is a revision of his 1989 thesis, so the two are effectively one source. All the thesis says about Chishti is, "other Sufi Saints who propagated Islam in Sylhet are as follows: [list of 43 names, including Khaza Aziz Chishti]." This only partly supports the first sentence of the article, and entirely fails to support the fourth sentence. All the district gazetteer says is, "Khaja Aziz Chishti was buried at Gaharpur Pargana." This fails to verify the fifth sentence of the article, and only partly verifies the sixth. The only remaining source is so obscure that I have been unable to consult it, but it has been used to support only two sentences: "Aziz's name is associated with the propagation of Islam in Balaganj. In 1303, he joined Shah Jalal in the Conquest of Sylhet." Judging by how the other sources have been misused, there's some doubt about whether Rashid supports those sentences. In any case, if that's all the content that can be wrung out of it, significant coverage has not been shown to exist. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khanda Jhokmok[edit]

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

Very few references, and the person is only mentioned in a list of other hundreds of disciples. No sign of independent notability. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All the district webpage says about Jhokmok is that his shrine is one of 16 noteworthy ones in the district. This only partly supports the first sentence of the article. All Ismail says about him is, "other Sufi Saints who propagated Islam in Sylhet are as follows: [list of 43 names, including Hazrat Jhanda Jhakmak] ... The dargah of Hazrat Jhanda Jhakmak is in Raipur of Sylhet." This doesn't support the second or third sentences of the article, and only partly supports the fourth. The district gazetteer merely lists his name among 355 "other Muslim Missionaries". This completely fails to verify the fifth sentence of the article. Azraf doesn't seem to add anything new. That leaves only p. 92 of v. 6 of journal Patrika. I will not be able to consult it before this discussion closes, but based on the other sources I'm inclined to believe the nominator when they say it is only a passing mention, not significant coverage. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:34, 11 May 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 New Alresford. Star Mississippi 02:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alresford Show[edit]

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

Non-notable event page created by a COI trying to bolster another COI article they created. Cited only to itself. Softlavender (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep argument is based on likely newspaper coverage over the years, see for example this search of British Newspaper Archive [1]. Some of the hits, probably a majority, are likely announcements but others include more detailed reports on the event so perhaps more than a stub could be written. The Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News has captioned photographic coverage for 1945 and 1946, and was a London-based publication, which helps alleviate concern over purely local sourcing see [2]. Rupples (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider redirect or Keep outcome given changes to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect is the best option, the coverage is still pretty weak Oaktree b (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect – the sources aren't good enough. They're too insignificant and this show is much too local to justify an article. Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Redirect. On balance redirect is probably the better option. Brief info. exists in the target article New Alresford under a subheading in the Events section. This could be expanded. "Too local" shouldn't necessarily preclude a separate article in the future if, for example, a substantial history of the show were to be written (that was a reliable source), and adding further encylopedic material would unbalance the New Alresford article. Rupples (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to New Alresford — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shivalya of Downtown Chicago[edit]

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

This temple no longer exists per https://goo.gl/maps/wu9p1uDYeo4aoXCJ8 Its website is not working, and its Facebook page is inactive. This article appears to have been written by someone with a close connection to the subject (WP: COI). It also appears to be an advertisement masquerading as an article (WP:PROMO) and cites no sources. Finally, the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements (WP:Notability). - Ram1751 (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 8 May 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 Family of Joe Biden#Grandchildren. Consensus is she's not sufficiently notable for a standalone article Star Mississippi 02:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finnegan Biden[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited from famous relatives. This is a grandchild of an American president who has only received pagesix-gossip-celebrity-like coverage because of her last name. Maid of honor at a wedding, attending inaugurations and state visits abroad, etc... Zaathras (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coverage for such otherwise routine events only comes about as a result of her famous last name, so, WP:NOTINHERITED comes in to force here. This is celebrity gossip crap, worthy of being talked about at Reddit's r/popculturechat, but not in an encyclopedia. Zaathras (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Willthacheerleader18 is effectively the article creator, as this was just a redirect before today. Zaathras (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She is not notable because she went to a coronation with her step grandmother and sat in a back row and is one of several grandchildren of a U.S. President. The flurry of attention is tied to a major event and will probably fade. Her older sister is arguably not notable either, but someone else can nominate that article for deletion. Bookworm857158367(talk) 23:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She did more than "sit in a back row". She and the First Lady were the only two American delegates to attend, and it was the first time in history that members of the First Family attended a British coronation. Aside from that, she met with the British Prime Minister's wife at 10 Downing Street the day before the coronation and attended the Prime Minister's Big Coronation Lunch afterward, where she sat with the Prime Minister and his family. Also the day before the coronation, she met with the Princess of Wales during the foreign dignitaries reception at Buckingham Palace. It was a lot more than just sitting in a church pew. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All this still doesn’t warrant a Wikipedia page. Meeting people and attending a event isn’t notable Unfriendnow (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, receiving news coverage for meeting with world leaders would establish notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People everyday meet world leaders and don’t have full Wikipedia pages. It makes more sense to put her in the Biden family wiki than to have her own. Unfriendnow (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. And the article covers more than just meeting with foreign dignitaries and world leaders. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it covers something she did at her university which thousands of other people do every year and they don’t have a Wikipedia for it. She isn’t notable, she’s simply a president’s grandchild. Unfriendnow (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide backup for your claim that ‘’thousands of people successfully campaign for universities to change their policy ever year’’? The fact of the matter is, regardless if that claim is true (which I am highly doubtful), she received news coverage for that. While the initial interest may be because of her familial relations, the fact is she received media coverage for her actions, not ‘’just’’ her name. — Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily search up normal everyday students doing something that changes their university be it policy or otherwise and they don’t receive a Wikipedia page about it. Again the only reason she received the coverage of her “actions” is because of her name, nobody would care otherwise. This entire Wikipedia page exists because she is a presidential grandchild and not because of her activism. It doesn’t make her notable. Her being in the news because of a dress she wore at a coronation doesn’t make her notable. Also if this was about her activism the Wikipedia page should’ve been made a long time ago no? And not only when she attended an event with her step-grandmother who happens to be the First Lady? Unfriendnow (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just it, she did receive coverage. Be it because of her name, she still received coverage for her actions. Was that name a stepping-stone to coverage or notability? Sure. But she still received notable coverage. One could use the same argument against more than half of the royalty articles on Wikipedia, or other relatives of notable people who, by their relations, had a "leg up" (the Eisenhower granddaughters come to mind). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage isn't enough for a WP or everyone who is in the news cycle for more than a week would get a WP. Again most of those who are royalty or related to notable people have some sort of a career or did something actually notable within their own right. Again attending a couple of events and doing something at your university like thousands of other people doesn’t warrant someone a WP. Unfriendnow (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“Attending a couple events” is basically what’s warranted notable coverage for royals. A staple of royalty is not having “some sort of career”, aside from patronages and attending events. With the exceptions of monarchs. Although that is all beside the point. It doesn't matter what the coverage is for, it matters that there is coverage in general. — Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not every royal who attends events or does some sort of charity work has an WP that's my entire point. Only the prominent ones who actually have some sort of career or many patronages or whatever. Unfriendnow (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect: Just as we did with Barron Trump. Coverage is entirely superficial and does not demonstrate independent notability. Curbon7 (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of her involvement in Democratic campaigns, or leading student protests at U Penn, is superficial? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to respond to every single !vote that isn't a keep? Curbon7 (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a discussion... -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but do keep WP:BLUDGEON in mind. Curbon7 (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It should be deleted I agree. There are no wiki pages for Sasha and Malia Obama as far as I know and they were daughters of a president and not just one of many grandchildren. Her sister Naomi should go as well. Unfriendnow (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation is not about her sister, nor the Obama daughters. This is about Finnegan Biden. Stating that other grandchildren and children of presidents haven't had articles written on Wikipedia does not bring any weight into an argument to delete or redirect this article. And, for the record, grandchildren of presidents have had articles before on Wikipedia (i.e. Anne Eisenhower, Jennie Eisenhower, Lauren Bush). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of those grandchildren actually have some sort of a career or did something actually notable within their own right. Attending a couple of events and doing something at your university like thousands of other people doesn’t warrant someone a wiki page. Unfriendnow (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do "thousands of other people" lead successful campaigns to have an Ivy League university change its policy? Because that's what Biden did at the University of Pennsylvania. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft Notability is not inherited although I will admit there is some potential here, having reliable sources (USA Today and Elle are examples). Just not enough to satisfy independent notability quite yet. Trillfendi (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about Joe Biden's activist granddaughter Finnegan could be an asset for White House if former VP wins presidency and Surpassing Deadlines: Finnegan Biden's Successful Campaign to Extend Pass/Fail (a story which also warranted an article in The Daily Pennsylvanian) ? Or this article in Grazia, which states, "'Finnegan Biden' is now a breakout search term"? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is inherited from famous relatives. The press probably wouldn't pay her any attention if it weren't for her famous relatives, but they do cover her, which is all that WP:GNG looks at. pburka (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your vote is literally, explicitly refuted by long-established project guidelines, i.e. that notability is NOT inherited. We could use this entry as an example at the target page, even. Zaathras (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, on Wikipedia, is not inherited. But, notability from famous relatives may lead to media coverage which, on Wikipedia, does establish notability. The policy even states: The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This person does not pass the GNG, that is the problem, the coverage is exclusively due to her being a famous relative, in nearly every instance because she has physically been taken in tow with the elder Bidens to meetings, functions, and events. Al Gore III, Sasha Obama, and Malia Obama have all been covered much more extensively than the granddaughter of a president ever has been. All 3 of them fail WP:GNG as well. Zaathras (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google search didn't bring up much for me on Gore, besides arrests and work with Tesla. IMHO Malia Obama should have her own article, particularly after the coverage regarding her directorial and screenwriting work that came out last month. Not that this means anything with Biden, of course. That's just it though, she has received more coverage than say, Maisy Biden, who I agree does not qualify for WP:GNG. I believe Finnegan Biden does. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the coverage was "due to". What matters is that the coverage exists. Also note that NOTINHERITED isn't a policy. It's not even a guideline. It's just an essay. pburka (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does matter, hence the principle of WP:NOTINHERITED. Your opinion is your right, but according to established norms of the Wikipedia it is essentially worthless. Zaathras (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you, perhaps, quote the part of the essay (or a guideline or policy) which supports your position? pburka (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I, perhaps, already have. Pburka literally based their keep vote on "she inherits notability". Not figuratively, not obliquely. Literally. I pointed out that this is an invalid argument to keep an article. Zaathras (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed that the press coverage should be ignored because it "is exclusively due to her being a famous relative". That claim isn't supported by the essay, or any guideline or policy. Your argument is not policy-based. (I wouldn't say it's worthless, though; that would be WP:UNCIVIL.) pburka (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure how you're getting this so wrong here, and I can't help you get back on track. You make an argument to keep (Notability is inherited from famous relatives) that is explicitly not a reason we use to keep articles in the Wikipedia. There is no argument or wiggle room here for your position. Period. There will be no further replies on this tangent. Zaathras (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The student-run 34th Street Magazine coverage Surpassing Deadlines: Finnegan Biden's Successful Campaign to Extend Pass/Fail includes her description of her role in a campaign against her high school dress code, and her description of the outcome. This student news outlet does independently say she "led the push to extend the pass/fail deadline" and states she wrote the Change.org petition and notes the signatures received, and then links to another student newspaper for the part about the administration changing the deadline. This student newspaper, The Daily Pennsylvanian, describes in more detail the student organizations involved and the work they did with the administration, but before the change happened: Penn will consider pushing back April 13 pass/fail opt-in deadline after students petition.
  • I tried to find more about the Sidwell dress code and anything related to Biden's involvement, and found a 3-sentence blurb in the local Washingtonian: Everything You Need to Know About the New First and Second Families (2021) "She has also acquired a rep as The Activist Granddaughter after petitioning to change the grading policies at Penn and, as a DC high-schooler, organizing against the Sidwell Friends dress code." Town & Country quotes the 34th Street quote of Biden talking about herself and her role in the Sidwell protest in Who Is President Biden's Granddaughter Finnegan Biden? (2023)
  • The Washingtonian (2021) blurb noted above also states "She was the most visible Biden grandchild during the 2020 race, appearing at campaign stops and virtual phone-banking sessions." In a November 2020 Glamour source Meet Joe Biden's Granddaughters—Naomi, Finnegan, Maisy, and Natalie, she is briefly described as "a rising senior at Penn and has maintained a low profile, although she did attend a Biden campaign rally at Clarke University in Dubuque, Iowa." Town & Country (2023) noted above is mostly a photo gallery, and says "Her most prominent public appearance is, of course, King Charles's coronation".
  • Other Biden grandchildren listicles include A guide to the Biden grandchildren as they celebrate Thanksgiving in Nantucket (2022) - there are three sentences in her blurb, including an Instagram post from her sister Naomi.
  • Other recent photo galleries plus content about the coronation, what she wore, what Jill Biden wore, what Jill Biden did and tweeted, include Harper's Bazaar Finnegan Biden Steals the Show at King Charles III's Coronation (2023). There is also Today: Who is Finnegan Biden? Joe and Jill Biden's granddaughter is attending the coronation (2023) which seems to exemplify how insubstantial the available coverage currently is - she attended the coronation, Jill Biden was the first first lady to do so, they met various dignitaries. She previously appeared on the Today show in 2020 with other family members to talk about Biden's election. There is an explanation of where she fits in the family tree and where her name is from, she attended UPenn, and "Her efforts to extend pass/fail grading options were covered by a local newspaper" (linking to the student-run 34th Street) and "she's joined her grandparents on official duties, like a trip to Beijing while Joe Biden was vice president (that has come under scrutiny), on the campaign trail in 2020."
  • From my view, trivial coverage at minimum is expected because she is part of the Biden family and participates in family and some political events. But what she told a university newspaper, coverage in a university news outlet about a Change.org petition she created as part of a broad campaign to change a school grading deadline, brief blurbs in listicle-type coverage of the family generally, and photo galleries of what she recently wore to a particularly major event does not seem to be enough to support a standalone encyclopedia article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would be appropriate too. Neither of the older granddaughters warrant a separate article based on the coverage above. I don’t know how many kids have fought against a school dress code or been politically active. Not notable. It will be if she successfully runs for national office herself or publishes a bestseller or the like. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet we have articles for the Biden's pets.. Commander, Major, Champ, and Willow all warrant their own articles but not his human granddaughters? I mean if we want to talk about WP:NOTINHERITED, then what have the (many) presidential pets who have articles done to achieve notability worthy of an encyclopedia aside from their, er, relation(?) to a president? There are currently 19 articles on presidential dogs and 3 articles on presidential cats. Are all of them more notable than a president's granddaughter who has met with world leaders? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a biography of a living person, which "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy", and based on my review of sources, it appears that other than the student-run outlet 34th Street, sources such as the Washingtonian and Today are more conservative in their descriptions of her high school and college activism, and Glamour describes her as "low profile" in 2020. Without what seems to be an WP:UNDUE focus on details about her recent appearance at the coronation, there does not appear to be much independent content available from reliable sources. And maybe articles about Biden pets should be condensed into one article, but that is not currently up for discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The dogs and cat don’t warrant separate articles either. There should be one article called Pets of U.S. Presidents that includes the various pets of all the assorted Presidents that got attention. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:20, 11 May 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gitanjali Rao (scientist)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. Per discussions, TIME and Forbes lists have been consistently rejected as standards for notability. The awards won, although prestigious, do not seem to cross the threshold for a Wikipedia page.

The individual highlighted has no publications, the tone used seems overtly narrative based, the content appears to have been written COI, and there seems to be little encyclopedic value brought by the article other than a litany of relatively noteworthy awards. Further, the classification of the individual as a "scientist" plainly fails the WP:SNG for academics. I do not believe the individual passes off on any particular SNG relating to people. I submit that the GNG is insufficient in this context as the standards espoused in the first deletion section would make achieving a full score on an AP exam, which hundreds of students do every year, warrant a Wikipedia page. Augend (drop a line) 22:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: moments of temporary celebrity are achieved all the time. In the grand scheme, it is unlikely that the secondary source coverage, surrounding one singular invention, fulfills a general standard of persistent or long-term notability. Augend (drop a line) 22:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • SpeedyKeep. The previous deletion discussion was just over a month ago and was unanimous for keep. It is not appropriate to re-nominate an article so quickly. Surmountable problems listed in this nomination are fixable per WP:NOTCLEANUP. VQuakr (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think time should be a limiting factor. There was very little serious discussion in the previous nomination discussion and the argument that "simply having momentary news coverage" with regard to GNG is insufficient for notability is not addressed. Nor does the article pass SNG for academics, which seems to be the point argued with the classification of the individual as a "scientist". The previous discussion seems to have been instead an exercise in copy-pasting various (syndicated) links to news articles. Augend (drop a line) 23:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject obviously doesn't meet the SNG for academics; that is irrelevant. A six-month period between nominations sticks in my mind but since I can't find it written down, I concede that it is unrealistic to hold you to an unwritten and possibly imaginary rule. The DAB parenthetical being ill-considered isn't a good argument for deletion; again see WP:NOTCLEANUP. Pinging previous participants. @Qx.est, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Hannes Röst, Jaireeodell, Graham Beards, Mujinga, Thilsebatti, and LordVoldemort728: VQuakr (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This comment will be neither here nor there, but I will submit that I find it amusing that a student, having won a K-8, albeit national, competition and raised a couple thousand dollars for said project, suddenly meets the notability guidelines when the mayor of their city would not. Augend (drop a line) 00:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Education, Science, and Colorado. Skynxnex (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per unanimous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gitanjali Rao (scientist) last month. I refute that "GNG is insufficient". GNG is the core of WP:AFD CT55555(talk) 06:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment in last afd. GNG is sufficent per WP:N policy, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I contend that this article fails WP:NOTWHOSWHO. It is tough to identify any notability beyond a single invention, a product of a single event. Augend (drop a line) 01:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ample reliable sourcing exists in the article to meet GNG and establish notability. WP:BEFORE does not seem to have been done and the nomination seems more concerned with cleanup and who gets to be called a scientist than policy. This article was kept just one month ago. gobonobo + c 11:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. We've looked at this and there's no reason to think that things have changed in a month. --Jaireeodell (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Discovery Education 3M Young Scientist Challenge is a pretty big nationwide event. And the Flint water crisis was/is a nationally noted crisis . The fact that at age 12 she developied a portable water quality test to help with that crisis, makes her pretty remarkable and notable. — Maile (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a point that seems to have appeared repeatedly. I don't think her age is something that warrants particular gravity. Nowhere in the notability guidelines does it say that age is a determining, or contributing, factor in establishing notability. We would not presume a baby with the ability to speak at three months of age is necessarily warranting of a Wikipedia page, even though they may indeed be precocious for their age. The conflation of "remarkable" and "notable" seems, to me at least, to be a recurring fallacy in "Keep" argumentation. The primary argument I have is that the vast majority of literature on this individual is in the form of news articles. In keeping with WP:NOTNEWS, I find it difficult to believe that this individual is notable for anything other than winning an award for one of her inventions, or indeed will be in the near or foreseeable future. The other content on the article plainly fails the GNG, including being listed on Times and Forbes lists and so forth. Augend (drop a line) 01:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm the previous AfD nom. I think it is also crucial to note that Tethys, the potable water quality test she invented, has not made any progress since 2018 from what I can see—pretty much a one-off invention. I haven't found any sources showing the actual product in use during the Flint water crisis. I believe it's one thing to invent something, and it's another thing to invent something that is being used. Because of her grade level (open only to grades 5 through 8), she was able to qualify for the 3M Young Scientist competition where she presented the Tethys prototype. The other invention on the article is called Kindly–the extension shows less than 70 Chrome extension users, and I can't find much information on it outside of UNICEF's website–the original website no longer is available. Kindly is one of the 152 digital public goods that UNICEF has listed on its registry. These projects parallel (not saying that it is) something to that of US high school students undertaking projects on in hopes of gaining admission to a prestigious university–once you're recognized/in for your work, you move on to the next big thing and stop working on what you were doing before. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep per WP:DELAFD. "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." pburka (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep. The previous discussion last month had eight editors participating and all comments besides the nominator's argued for keeping the article. I don't see how that even comes close to very little serious discussion, and thus see no reason to ignore WP:DPAFD, where a reasonable amount of time has clearly not passed. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 20:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the age of the subject should absolutely be a factor in gauging NOPAGE. The sourcing on her is 100% award hype (and that includes followup content from the awarding orgs) for apps and inventions that never actually materialized, which is...a really weak basis for an article, and potentially embarrassing to have hanging over her as she enters college. In many (most?) of these cases the child returns to being low-profile in adulthood (see, e.g., this article on a subject with far, far more sustained coverage). JoelleJay (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Call it 100% award hype if you like, but it's sustained:201720182019202020222023 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned, TIME lists aren't sufficient for notability. Neither 2022 nor 2023 has anything new of substance - the 2022 link just cites a bunch of old ones (including the 2020 link and the press release from 3M itself) and regurgitates it in other vocabulary - no new information in any form is presented other than a rewrite of old content. The 2023 link appears to be little other than an advertisement for a podcast. There is no unique content there whatsoever. Augend (drop a line) 04:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable doesn't have to mean excellent or top of their game—it just means the subject has been noted in reliable sources (see WP:GNG for the exact wording). I can understand the enthusiasm to delete articles but WP:DELAFD should be followed. The nominator should have fewer than 1⁄3 of the edits on an AfD page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep: per all the valid reasons stated above, this already had a recent and unanimous decision made. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only because consensus was reached recently to keep this. If I had noticed the previous discussion, or if this is nominated for deletion in a few months time (the minimum necessary for WP:CCC to kick in), I might well [have] call[ed] for deletion on the basis that we should not have a WP:REFBOMBed article that seems to be sourced only to news. Where are the books from serious publishers that cover her? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the books writing about her I looked at seems be by publishers directed at children, like Workman Publishing Company, Simon Spotlight and Disney. They might be considered to have WP:N-value just the same. I'd say a fare share of WP:s BLP:s are sourced only to news, take Wally Green (table tennis), my last one. I see nothing at GNG that demands books. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NOTNEWS: While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. Augend (drop a line) 05:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider the coverage of Rao routine if you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 13 May 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 Ramona (novel series)#Characters. ✗plicit 23:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Quimby[edit]

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

Minor character mentioned in one book of a children's series. No notability on her own as far as I can tell. The description of her is also very in-universe which is not what the Wikipedia is for.Jaguarnik (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [similar lack of notability]:

Mrs. Dorothy Quimby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mr. Robert Quimby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jaguarnik (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the coverage about her that I found are trivial mentions. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All into a new Quimby Family article covering both the notable and NN characters, redirecting individual character names into the new article. Or, if you prefer a List of Ramona Quimby series characters or something like it. While it appears likely these don't need to exist as standalone articles, there are multiple ATDs preferable to outright deletion. Jclemens (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a section about the characters in Ramona (novel series); I don't see that these articles need to exist as standalone articles, maybe an entire Quimby Family article is possible but I do not believe that's the best solution.Jaguarnik (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect All to Ramona (novel series)#Characters - It looks like a pretty sufficient character list already exists at the series' article. Its pretty clear that none of these three nominated characters are notable enough to warrant individual articles, but redirecting to the existing list to aid in searches is a pretty obvious WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that does look like a better target, thanks! Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or selectively merge per Rorshacma. None of the characters have enough coverage for a stand-alone article, but there is a clear place where they are already covered, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:08, 15 May 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pot Roast (cat)[edit]

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

No lasting coverage, all sources come from the same week or so and focus on the cat's death. See WP:BLP1E/WP:ONEEVENT; the article also fails to show any real notability or significance of one of many briefly famous Internet cats. SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    Analysis of the sources

    Pot Roast, a cat from Kansas City, Missouri, died on 16 February 2022. Pot Roast was profiled in The Pitch on 24 May 2021, which is eight months before her death. This shows that at least one source provided significant coverage about Pot Roast and was not about her death.

    After Pot Roast died, she received substantial coverage in numerous articles including in international sources like The Independent and the Toronto Star and in national sources like NBC News, HuffPost, and People. The article in the Toronto Star is an especially strong source that contains detailed analysis and commentary about the cat. This satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Diversity of sources.

    Pot Roast subsequently received significant coverage over six months after her death in NBC News, The Pitch, and Junkee. This satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage.

    Sources

    1. Article published before the cat's death:
      1. Misle, Sophia (2021-05-24). "Pot Roast is KC's viral TikTok feline celeb". The Pitch. Archived from the original on 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-05-09.

        The article notes: "Pot Roast the cat went from being hidden in a sorority house to being TikTok famous. Her owner, whose name has been rescinded for privacy reasons, found Pot Roast during a college finals week her sophomore year in 2014. ... She ended up paying to stay a full two hours with Pot Roast and had someone drive her to the animal shelter immediately after the event in hopes of adopting her. PRO says the shelter was willing to let her adopt Pot Roast for only $20 and all of a sudden PRO was a cat mom."

    2. Articles published six months or more after the cat's death:
      1. Rosenblatt, Kalhan (2022-12-28). "A look back at the beloved internet-famous animals who died in 2022". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-05-09.

        The article provides 169 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Pot Roast was a toothless, black-and-white cat, who captured the heart of the internet with her laid-back personality, messy eating and assorted health problems. She grew to prominence on the account @PotRoastsMom, where her owner, who publicly identifies only as "Pot Roast's Mom," introduced her to the world. The account had more than 1.2 million followers. ... In the wake of Pot Roast's death in February, Pot Roast's mom was harassed and criticized for using jokes and dark humor to cope with the loss of her pet. That led to discussions about how followers on social media create parasocial relationships with the people and animals they see online. Since Pot Roast's passing, Pot Roast's Mom has adopted two new cats: Soup and Coupon.

      2. Textor, Lauren (2023-04-30). "Grieving the Star of the Pot Roast Cinematic Universe: Pot Roast's Mom reflects on life one year after the famous TikTok cat's death". The Pitch. Archived from the original on 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-05-09.

        The article notes: "A year after the death of Kansas City’s feline TikTok celebrity, Pot Roast’s Mom is taking stock of her life and setting new boundaries with her online community.  Pot Roast’s Mom (whose name will remain anonymous for privacy reasons) has been creating TikTok videos since January 2021, most of which starred the legendary Pot Roast until her death in Feb. 2022. She has 1.2 million followers on TikTok and 144,000 on Instagram. "

      3. Vogele, Emily De (2022-09-19). "The 10 Cutest Cats To Follow On TikTok". Screen Rant. Archived from the original on 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-05-09.

        The article provides 81 words of coverage about the subject and her owner. The article notes: "Pot Roast took the world by storm during the height of the pandemic. Unfortunately, Pot Roast passed away earlier this year, and many were worried they'd never see Pot Roast's Mom on the platform again. After Pot Roast's passing, her mom took some time before fostering new kittens. She eventually adopted one of them, amply named Faucet. She has been sharing their daily lives since, with a sprinkle of her own humor and Faucet's cute antics, making them a perfect pair."

      4. Bouris, Catherine (2023-04-12). "What Happens When Internet Famous Pets Die?". Junkee. Archived from the original on 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-05-09.

        The article provides 217 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "In February 2022, a black and white cat who had been diagnosed with feline immunodeficiency virus, or FIV, passed away. Pets dying, while devastating for the owners who love them, is not an uncommon occurrence – their lives are tragically much shorter than human ones, after all. What makes this example unique is the storm that followed.  The cat, whose name was Pot Roast, had garnered a sizable TikTok following, and fans on the app eagerly awaited regular updates on their favourite internet famous cat. When Pot Roast passed away, her mother, known online as Pot Roast’s Mom, was bombarded with messages from strangers unimpressed with how she handled her cat’s health concerns."

    3. Articles published within three months of the cat's death:
      1. Abes, Catherine (2022-03-14). "On parasocial relationships. Or how I found myself weeping over a TikTok-famous cat". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-05-09.

        The article notes: "I try not to pick favourites when it comes to pets, but Pot Roast the cat always held a special place in my heart. Toothless and ungroomed, with food debris often stuck in the fur under her chin, seven-year-old Pot Roast was best described as scraggly. Some even referred to her as a taxidermy cat in the sense that she didn’t appear healthy enough to be alive — indeed, she had several health issues, including feline herpes, autoimmune disease, allergies and stomatitis that necessitated the removal of her teeth and made her stop self-grooming. I was charmed and inspired by her refusal to die."

      2. Sung, Morgan (2022-03-04). "Her TikTok-famous cat died. Devastated fans lashed out". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-05-09.

        The article notes: "Pot Roast was a toothless black-and-white cat who was beloved on TikTok for her assortment of hats and messy eating habits. She had survived several health issues as a kitten, and many found her scraggly appearance endearing. After her unexpected death last month, fans were heartbroken. Some went as far as taking their grief out on Pot Roast’s owner, who had been harassed over Pot Roast’s health long before the cat became sick."

      3. Javed, Saman (2022-02-17). "Pot Roast: Internet mourns loss of beloved TikTok cat". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-05-09.

        The article notes: "Pot Roast, TikTok’s most loved cat, has died following ongoing health issues, her owner has confirmed. In a video shared to the platform, her owner announced that Pot Roast had died at 1.47am on Wednesday 16 February. ... Pot Roast’s health had been declining in recent weeks after she tested positive for feline immunodeficiency virus, an infection which attacks the cat’s immune system."

      4. Adams, Abigail (2022-02-17). "Pot Roast — One of the Most Beloved Cats on TikTok — Has Died, the Pet's Owner Confirms". People. Archived from the original on 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-05-09.

        The article notes: "Over the last year, Pot Roast and her owner captured the attention of millions on TikTok with their quirky personalities. The account has garnered more than 953,000 followers since its conception."

      5. Cyre, Clayton Sterling (2022-02-18). "Popular TikTok Cat Pot Roast Has Passed Away". Game Rant. Archived from the original on 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-05-09.

        The article notes: "One TikTok user, Pot Roast's Mom, who shared videos of her scruffy cat, went viral during Winter 2020. But the vast audience she reached is now mourning the passing of Pot Roast the cat. ... The Kansas City-based TikToker regularly reached millions of viewers through clips of Pot Roast wearing cute or comical garb, the pet owner petting the happy cat, and syncing the cat's actions with music like many other TikToker creators do with music videos. Throughout the years of regular posts, Pot Roast's Mom was able to show TikTok viewers the calm and playful nature of the adopted cat while she was alive."

      6. Gunn, Tamantha (2022-02-17). "TikTok Mourns Death of Beloved Cat Pot Roast". E!. Archived from the original on 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-05-09.

        The article notes: "On Feb. 16 the beloved cat's owner (who has never revealed her name for privacy reasons) shared that the popular TikTok personality had passed away following a battle with feline immunodeficiency virus."

      7. Schroeder, Audra (2022-02-17). "Beloved TikTok cat Pot Roast has died". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-05-09.

        The article notes: "Ironically, Pot Roast became popular on TikTok for her appearance: Many people apparently thought she was dead or taxidermied, which her owner played up."

      8. Wanshel, Elyse (2022-02-17). "Pot Roast, Cat Beloved On TikTok For Her 'Taxidermy' Energy, Has Died". HuffPost. Archived from the original on 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-05-09.

        The article notes: "Pot Roast — a cat named after the “very special dish” served on “very special occasions” because her owner wanted to gobble her up with affection — has died. The fluffy black and white feline was a TikTok star thanks to her human’s funny videos that poked fun at the pet she very clearly adored."

      9. Wilbur, Brock (2022-04-29). "Letter from the Editor: Love, loss, and Pot Roast". The Pitch. Archived from the original on 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-05-09.

        The article notes: "Pot Roast as a cat would be someone I would follow and adore from afar. Pot Roast’s Mom is the element that made this whole situation viral. PRM is one of the most bleakly hilarious performers I have ever known. She matched a disgruntled feline to videos with songs, digitally accompanied narratives, and gentle snapshots of life—most always delivered with a combination of dirt dry sarcasm and, somehow, overwhelmingly supportive positive vibes. Pot Roast was not a cat on the internet. Pot Roast was a cat that seemed to belong to all of us. I spent enough time with videos of Pot Roast over the last few years that, would she have crossed my path at The Pitch offices, I would not not have been surprised.  And then we lost her."

      10. Silver, Lauren (2022-02-17). "Pot Roast, cat famous on TikTok, dies of FIV". KOKI-TV. Archived from the original on 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-05-09.

        The article notes: "Pot Roast had become a celebrity on the social media app, with videos receiving more than 64 million likes total and a following of nearly one million, The Independent reported. Pot Roast’s owner had documented the cat’s declining health, and in a post on Feb. 8 explained that Pot Roast had been diagnosed with Feline Immunodeficiency Virus."

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

    Cunard (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Pinging Kvng (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the extensive source analysis above. I'd not heard of the animal before today, welcome to wikipedia, kitty. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on source analysis above. Seems to have substantial lasting coverage at multiple outlets over several months, I think that qualifies for notability. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly the coverage is there. Good case not made for WP:BIO1E. ~Kvng (talk) 14:11, 15 May 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Fowler[edit]

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of the subject. The subject is mentioned briefly in several non-RS (usually because he was part of a TV show panel where someone said something controversial}. The only RS that mentions him is an AP article that includes one quote by him in a story about participants in a conference (he was one such participant). Thenightaway (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appearing on TV isn't enough, we need sourced about him. I can only find stuff he's written or articles where he gives his opinion. This is typical [3], it's a blog, but that's the extent of coverage for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Many of these pages, however, ought to be individually re-evaluated and perhaps re-nominated for deletion, ideally after the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications#Dialling codes in the United Kingdom concludes, so as to keep the conversion integrated. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

0114[edit]

0114 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These area code articles do not meet WP:GNG. They are poorly sourced, contain a lot of WP:OR and unsourced material and do not assert any reason as to why these codes specifically over-and-above all others warrant standalone articles rather than entries in the List of dialling codes in the United Kingdom. Many of the sources are to lists of area codes that WP:EXIST which is not a reason to have a Wikipedia article on the topic. If all the poorly sourced, unsourced and OR material was removed, we would be left with a stub saying "01xxx is the area code for Town X", which is prime WP:NOTDIR territory.

The articles were previously PRODded and this was contested. I am bringing them to AfD to gather community consensus on whether they are worth keeping or should be deleted. Flip Format (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the above stated reason:

0191 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
01527 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
01633 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
01708 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
01932 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Flip Format (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All the area code changes in the UK generated a lot of coverage by reliable sources. We have highly detailed articles about North American area codes, and similarly detailed ones about British area codes serve the same need. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you share some of that "lot of coverage by reliable sources"? Anything available online that you could point to? — kashmīrī TALK 01:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any that are not the subject of non-specialist reliable sources. Of course there are reliable sources for area-codes: the telephone companies produce highly reliable information about telephone numbers, for a start. But unless there is some special historical or social interest about a number, attracting attention beyond providers of telephone information, it's no more interesting than a post-code, and I notice that we group them into a very small number of very general list-pages. There are an awful lot of inconsequential area-codes. There are a lot of databases where you can look up an area code if you want to know what area it is. I can't see any value beyond this that our reader could find in most of these articles. I am open to the keeping of articles on those numbers where notability can be specifically demonstrated. Elemimele (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the above codes, since none is independently notable and (in contrast to the 020 London code) none has any sensible references beyond fan-run blogs. Also, Wikipedia is not a directory. — kashmīrī TALK 01:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least until the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications#Dialling codes in the United Kingdom has concluded. There are numerous open questions that need answers before we can fairly evaluate articles on this topic, including the comparison with North American Numbering Plan articles noted by Eastmain. That the nominator has chosen AfD rather than engaging constructively with that discussion should be noted. Thryduulf (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly the OP was unaware of the discussion? Elemimele (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they were definitely aware: this nomination came about 12 hours after they left a comment in that discussion. I also explicitly linked it in the edit summary when deprodding the articles. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an argument that can be used in a deletion discussion.
    Thing is, we are required to evaluate nominations through the prism of GNG; opinions from individual projects are at best a tertiary consideration. Also good to keep in mind that discussions within projects can take months, and then end up with no conclusion whatsoever.
    What about allowing this nomination run to its end, and *if* it ends in Delete, and *if* the project folks conclude it should have been kept, going for WP:REFUND? — kashmīrī TALK 18:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I came here because 0191 was added as an additional deletion candidate and I think the argument that it's unsourced is incorrect - maybe the original nominated article is, but by widening it they're making assertions that aren't quite true. Speaking only for the particular code I was tagged in, I think there's enough sourced and useful information to retain this. While never a good argument, the fact the editor hasn't tagged the London code 020 does suggest a 'nothing outside of London is notable' mentality to this nomination. The comments by other editors that note this nomination was made in spite of a constructive discussion going on elsewhere does make this nomination seem a bit premature. Bob talk 07:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 0114 and 0191 both pass all notability concerns as they are dialling codes covering a major, highly populated metropolitan area. Rillington (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Telephone area codes covering populated places are notable. MRSC (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Kostick[edit]

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

I don't believe the subject of the article can pass a notability check, nor do I believe the references used in the article count as "reliable secondary sources" as such. The bulk of them are pages confirming that the subject has won a number of minor competitions but none of them discuss the subject at any length. The article reads to me like it was created to promote the subject. In the edit history, most of the content added to the page comes from an anonymous IP, which is likely the subject of the article themselves.

Googling the subject of the article does not bring up any notable coverage such as in newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CeltBrowne (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Games. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that the awards he has won are enough to demonstrate notability. They aren't minor. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I checked the Irish Times archive post-1995 via ProQuest and got 47 results. JimHolden (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His Amazon rankings say that he's a significant author, as does his role in the Irish Writers Union. --Andywilson23 (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The publication record, of actual books, makes him seem notable Bartash (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is room to improve, but this has developed over time with many editors, and the content seems more than enough to meet our standards. I do not see major WP:PROMO concerns, and the person is evidenced in sources over an extended period. This does not even seem a marginal case. SeoR (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Mjroots (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Charles Upton (poet)[edit]

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

No evidence of independent, reliable sources exist for this person. Everything appears to be self-published, or trivial mentions, or the like. Jayron32 18:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Upton is not merely self-published, he had a book published by one of the most famous presses in twentieth century American poetry, City Lights Bookstore in 1968. He has a bio of three double column pages in The Beats, literary bohemians in postwar America[4]. There's also a short bio in Guide to Literary Masters and Their Works[5].--Jahaza (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said his works were self-published. It appears that sources about his life are not independent sources, that source material is self-published. --Jayron32 13:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User:ONUnicorn has dropped 3 refs on the talk page and looks like they are currently working these into the article; I have the citation for a journal (but not the source) on the talk page, which reviews two of Upton's works, if there is to be a Reception section. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have found another reliable journal review. Not flattering, but it's a review. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination The additional sources that have been provided alleviate my concerns over notability. --Jayron32 12:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you: your nomination highlighted a valid and important issue. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:58, 11 May 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 numbered comets. RL0919 (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

208P/McMillan[edit]

208P/McMillan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only coverage is from databases and the announcements about the discoveries[6], the orbital elements[7] and the assosiation with a previous apparition[8] and thus the numbering [9]. They may sound enough, but this is just routine coverage for a numbered comet, and thus fails in WP:NASTCRIT, according to which multiple non-trivial published works, which contain significant commentary on the object are needed (eg. it doesn't have a dedicated page in Kronk's cometography). C messier (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Redirect to List of numbered comets. --C messier (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prasad Kadam[edit]

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

From the sources presented, I don't think the subject of the article is notable per WP:GNG or WP:NDIRECTOR Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 17:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Coverage is minimal, I can't find many other sources. Will keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete I can't find anything worth using for sourcing. Sources are minimal. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's probably not enough about this person to write an article, which is why the current article is basically just 1 sentence and a short list of works. All sources I can find are trivial mentions or short blurbs about them, very little about them appears to exist. --Jayron32 18:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Retro TV affiliates[edit]

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

This list is horrendously outdated, shoddily made, and completely devoid of sources. Short of completely recreating it from scratch, it's beyond salvagable. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It is unsourced but not unsourcable, as there is such a list on the RetroTV website. Having said that, it's hard to see the point, as we'll always just be chasing that external web page. The ability of the Wikipedia user to find links to Wikipedia pages for all those channels is of dubious value, and might better be served with a category. --
Nat Gertler (talk) 16:41, 8 May 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 selective merge‎ to Lake City High School. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lake City student walkout[edit]

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

Local high school student walkout. Not really notable. Does not appear to have gained any traction outside a small area. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I live in the wonderful state of Iowa and the Coeur d'Alene levy and the issues that surround it are of utmost importance to me. Please don't delete my favorite article on this whole website. Sadalmond5 (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've made two edits on Wikipedia (this is one of them) band a three day old article is your favourite? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a group of high school students organized and participated in a walkout is itself notable. Young people taking political action and using their voices to advocate for change is a powerful and important demonstration of civic engagement. Even if the walkout only takes place in one local area, it can still have a significant impact on the students who participate and the community they belong to. Imagine how many Wikipedia articles are solely only important to those who live in a certain community, by your standard we should delete them all... LueDash (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has articles for major events with long-lasting consequences over a wide area. Events that are only important to a single community are not notable and articles about them should be deleted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes articles about events that have little to no impact outside a small area should be deleted. For example COVID had a huge impact on almost every school worldwide but we don't have articles called the "Effects of COVID-19 on Lake City High School" or the "Effects of COVID-19 on Kiilinik High School". CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My high school has done 2 high-participation walkouts this year (one about gun violence, 100+; and one about budget cuts, several dozen). Both got noticed by the local newspapers. Neither are notable. BhamBoi (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•Merge with Lake City High School PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 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. After a significant excising of promotional content, there are multiple WP:RS profiles to use for the remainder. RL0919 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Shroff[edit]

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

This page should be deleted, frankly. I have never seen such a sketchy page, and it's furthermore rather unnotable Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Meets WP:N Unsure why you think the page is un notable for one of the top corporate lawyers, well known among India's top businessmen and the founder of India's Biggest Law Firm. Making vague comments without giving a substantial reason and nominating for AFD is actually absurd. I can also see that you have nominated a lot of other pages for deletion too which are related to one of the prominent business families in India - The Adani's, which makes this nomination even more weird. Anandyadav87 (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He more than likely is notable, but if we don't have extensive sources talking about him in a non-flashy way, we can't keep the page. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Deletion of notable pages due to a "lack of extensive sources talking about a subject in a non-flashy way" is not WP policy Jack4576 (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: WP:GNG requires high-quality, reliable sources: there are a lot of sources cited here, but most of them don't really cross that bar. With that said, the Forbes article does, and certainly represents WP:SIGCOV. A few hits on Google Books (e.g. a chapter here might also qualify. It's borderline, and I think it's beyond question that the article is currently more WP:PUFFERY and WP:PROMO than anything else, but I think WP:GNG is just about satisfied: pruned of the dubiously-notable awards and with greater discussion of his coverage in the media, this could be a reasonable article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this page based on the rationale presented by Oaktree b. RPSkokie (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the FT profile archived here is SIGCOV and therefore the subject is presumed notable. In addition, as Anandyadav87 has noted this is a prominent indian lawyer. Frankly nominating these types of pages furthers English wikipedia's Anglo-centric bias and makes the encyclopedia all the worse for it. If the article is PROMO, then edit the article and remove the promo. Hell, I'll do it right now myself, watch me. Jack4576 (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finished cleaning article for PROMO Jack4576 (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter de Villiers (politician)[edit]

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

Person does not meet the notable people standard and died in 2017. Ryanharmany (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect to Opuwo as creator. I started this article 15 years ago when Wikipedia's standards for notability were different than today's consensus. I agree that this article doesn't meet notability guidelines.--User:Namiba 14:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the death of a person a reason to delete? On the notability claim, I concur, delete. A redirect won't add value because de Villiers is only mentioned as a notable person of that town, a claim that would have to be removed if this AfD succeeds. --Pgallert (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although (1) its plausible this entry is of value to Namibian Wikipedians, (2) the claims contained in the article are supported by reliable sources, and (3) retaining this entry would go assist in addressing WP's systematic biases ...
... the lack of coverage, both in-depth and assessed collectively means that this entry doesn't meet GNG or SNG SIGCOV requirements
Regrettably this is an instance where applying guidelines requires deletion, irrespective of other considerations Jack4576 (talk) Jack4576 (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of secondary state highways in Virginia. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia State Route 846 (Loudoun County)[edit]

Virginia State Route 846 (Loudoun County) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable secondary road. Philroc (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Open to discussing a merge, however Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia State Route 665 did not come up with any consensus and neither did [10]. --Rschen7754 05:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per VC, since there is no table in this article it should be okay to merge in this scenario. --Rschen7754 00:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in the same camp as Rschen here with regards to a merger. In a perfect world, List of secondary routes in Loudoun County, Virginia would exist and it would have already been redirected there, but it doesn't. –Fredddie™ 05:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Road not notable enough for its own article and no suitable redirect target. However, if a list of secondary routes for Loudoun County is created then a redirect for this route can be made there. Dough4872 12:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - Per VC. Until a list of secondary routes for Loudoun County is created, a merge to the main list of secondary highways will do for now. Dough4872 19:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—The Sterling Boulevard part of SR 846 has a functional classification of minor arterial, which is one level below the principal arterials that are part of the National Highway System. The highway might have significant coverage independent of being the main street of the 1960s-developed Sterling Park housing development to meet the general notability guideline; I'll try to find some sources later. VC 13:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into List of secondary state highways in Virginia until we figure out a solution for the Virginia state secondary highways, which I expand upon in my response to Streetlampguy301 below. I could not find significant coverage of this highway outside of it being the main street of the surrounding development. Not to say the coverage does not exist, but I am doubtful at this point. VC 18:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Trying to create an article on every single route in Loudoun County would be extremely tedious and pointless given the sheer number of routes in this one particular county (a lot of which travel through areas with little or no population or otherwise have no significance). A select few routes might be significant enough to warrant a standalone article, but most of them don't seem notable enough. Besides, there are no List of secondary routes in X County articles for any other place in Virginia, let alone anywhere else in the United States, and it wouldn't be viable to create such articles where few of the routes are anywhere near notable in the first place. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • A key task in figuring out what to do with the Virginia state secondary highways is to determine both (1) what makes a highway notable enough to have a standalone article and (2) what makes a highway notable enough to be part of a list. I don't think anyone is arguing for coverage of every state secondary highway. VC 19:02, 9 May 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 Richard Manitoba. ✗plicit 00:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Born in the Bronx[edit]

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

Non-notable album, fails WP:NALBUMS. Mooonswimmer 12:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on page do not provide for notability (AllMusic has no review, Jewish Journal is an interview), but I did find a staff review from PunkNews and another review from the Philadelphia Inquirer (here behind a paywall, here republished seemingly free to view). That's all I've found, but it's better than nothing. Based on this alone, I would suggest a redirect to Richard Manitoba, but if more is located then this could be keepable after all. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farzana Dua Elahe[edit]

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

Actor whose roles have been either minor or in non-notable productions, so does not meet WP:NACTOR. DJ who has not been the subject of independent coverage, so does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Many sources are cited, but they are capsule bios provided by the subject or their publicist, brief mentions in photo captions, or primary source credits listing all actors in a production. The only hints of critical analysis are single sentences in three of the ten theater reviews:

  • "The cast prove themselves equal to the task, frequently above and beyond the call of duty, particularly Ian Dunn and Robert Gwilym, Kirsty Bushell (Tetyana) and Farzana Dua Elahe (Muna), while the duel between Emma (Teresa Banham) and Nasim (Sirine Saba) is riveting."
  • "Kirsty Bushell, in the tender scenes between Tetyana and her stepdaughter, produces moments of real pathos, and just how does Farzana Dua Elahe morph before our eyes from a grouchy 11-year-old in her nightie into a perky Albanian whore with great legs?"
  • "Entwined with their stories are those of Mahmood (Sushil Chudasama), struggling to overcome drug addiction and also achieve the British Citizen status his father coveted for him, and of Tetyana (Kirsty Bushell) and her step-daughter Muna (Farzana Dua Elahe), whose cautious, stake-laden relationship is beautifully realised here."

This does not add up to significant attention by the world at large. They are an actor/DJ doing their job, but unless Wikipedia aspires to be a resume hosting service or an indiscriminate catalogue like IMDb, they should not be the subject of a stand alone encyclopedia article. Worldbruce (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sources just aren't enough to keep the article. 4 appearances in East Enders in 2009 isn't ACTOR, the rest a bit parts. Character actor doing their job, nothing we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources aren't enough to keep. Agreed with Oaktree b. CastJared (talk) 17:53, 8 May 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Lo (businessman)[edit]

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

A prolifically deleted page about a subject shown not to meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria at AfD. There's quite a lot of poorly sourced philanthropic puffery in this particular incarnation and some ugly citation bombing going on. Clearly the hand of PR has played a part in creating this entry. Icicle City (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This entry is a direct translation of the Chinese version. Yes, would need some change in content but the subject is notable and famous in Asian region. JCmainly (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being a direct translation of an article that already exists on another language Wikipedia is not a keep rationale in and of itself, per WP:WAX. What has to be shown is that the article is properly sourced as passing the English Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Agree with @JCmainly on the translation. Simonriley1994 (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite a few substantial sources about him already in the article. Admittedly there's a fluff component to them but they meet the criteria for notability. Lamona (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What zhwp has articles on or not means absolutely nothing here, as each project has different notability standards. So can we get some discussion based on enwp content standards, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Based on an extensive research on the sources provided, most of them are adhering to notability standards of enwp. Some of the platforms are weak but within the guidelines. I would also like to improve on content, but surely meet the standard of enwp notability. Simonriley1994 (talk) 15:57, 8 May 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 Rob Chapman (guitarist) or a subsection thereof. There isn't consensus on that. Star Mississippi 02:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dorje (band)[edit]

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

Sources on page mostly (if not entirely) do not provide for notability. Found limited coverage of their breakup which was mostly based on Chapman's statement and otherwise insubstantial, and nothing else of use. No apparent evidence of an NMUSIC pass either. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes too much difference because Chapman's article is just a list of brief projects that barely deserve to have their own sections. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:39, 8 May 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 Fairfield Stags men's basketball#Stags in the NBA Draft unless further sourcing appears. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Rafferty[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. I couldn't find any media coverage, just a blank stats sheet for his NBA non-career.[11] Clarityfiend (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:39, 8 May 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 ABS-CBN Corporation subsidiaries#Others. ✗plicit 00:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant 9501[edit]

Restaurant 9501 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A now closed restaurant that fails GNG. 1st source is dead, and the 3 others appear to be food blogs. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither the restraunt nor the ref needs to stay alive for notability to remain WP:NOTTEMPORARY, but it seems like it might not have ever been there in the first place. small jars tc 08:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X (mixtape)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Charting and sales both insignificant. Other provided sources questionable in terms of reliability (Neither mentioned at WP:KO/RS but they don't look great). Couldn't find any additional coverage. Redirect to pH-1 (rapper). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am busy irl now, so I will answer this after April 26. SHPG/수행평가 (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just reply now. I have found additional sources such as https://www.xportsnews.com/article/1267617 and https://newsen.com/news_view.php?uid=202005040709322410. However, I have lost interest in improving the article, so I wouldn't care if it were deleted. SHPG/수행평가 (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to pH-1 (rapper). I did a cursory search in Korean, but I could not find significant, third-party coverage to establish that this is independently notable from pH-1. WP:NALBUM reads, "a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria" (emphasis mine). It does not guarantee a separate article. The references above are merely WP:ROUTINE announcements of the mixtape's release. ✗plicit 12:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Energy Motors[edit]

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

Upon careful review of the Blue Energy Motors Wikipedia page, it has become apparent that the subject of the article does not exist, and there are no reliable sources to substantiate its claims. It has no significant coverage in independent, verifiable sources, which is essential to establish notability and adhere to Wikipedia's standards.

The article appears to be a hoax or a fabrication, and its content cannot be verified through credible sources. Lulakayd (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Fatal Fury characters. ✗plicit 14:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kaphwan[edit]

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

Minor character clearly fails WP:GNG. Despite well written, sources were mostly from unreliable and blogs. Also at reception section, those were full of passing mentions and listicles, thus showing zero WP:SIGCOV. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpa Srivathsan[edit]

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

Purely promotional article, if not anything needs WP:TNT. Though doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC either; sources either don't mention her, name drop her or are non-independent and primary in nature. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce Rafferty[edit]

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

Another Rafferty who has not made enough of a mark for himself. Co-director, co-producer and co-writer of the documentary The Atomic Cafe and writer of another isn't enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePlenty of hits for Kevin Rafferty, nothing for this person. Kevin's obit in the NYT mentions him in passing [12], that's about the best. Film roles are writer and co-producer, director of an obscure museum, none of which add to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Tulio Boasso[edit]

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

I don’t find any in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Created by an SPA who made numerous attempts to create and recreate this article and contributed nothing else. Mccapra (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Organizations, and Uruguay. Mccapra (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Previous article instances by the WP:SPA contributor were deleted via CSD [13], PROD [14] and AfD, then declined at AfC and re-created under the present name variant. An AfD on this instance in 2013 attracted no participation and was closed no-consensus, which doesn't affect the prior consensus from the first AfD. At most, the given references verify that the subject had a job, in which role he was quoted. Searches find that he had at least one further appointment within the organisation, working in the Philippines, but I see nothing to demonstrate attained biographical notability here. AllyD (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plenty of hits on the name, nothing found for this envoy. He worked, and that's about all there is to say. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelkader Kharraz[edit]

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

A highly promotional article, with a lot of sockpuppetry surrounding its history. It's been repeatedly draftified / declined at AfC, so I thought an AfD discussion to establish a consensus on notability would probably be more useful than moving it to draft yet again. Girth Summit (blether) 11:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Exclusively relies on promotional pieces as sources. Found no significant coverage that can be used to improve the article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you remove all the fawning praise, there's not much left other than "He was a policeman who did police things, and later told us about it on social media". I don't see notability here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a former police officer with a YouTube channel - and that's pretty much all there is - is not notable. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close‎ as wrong venue. Deletion discussions for draftspace articles happen at WP:MFD. (non-admin closure) --Finngall talk 14:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Agyrocircularis[edit]

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

Delete:The Draft is just a wholly delusional mess created by an IP address which shares similar edits (vandalism, adding gibberish to pages, etc.) with the ones which added unnecessary taxoboxes to the page Francevillian biota and has also been edited by an unassuming Wikipedia admin without sufficient research.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jack4576 (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic empire[edit]

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

This seems to be a straightforward case of Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article consists of the definition of a term (itself simply the combination of two everyday words) and the assertion that the term has been applied to various empires throughout history. I can't verify the second of the two cited sources, but the first is a fairly vague pontification on the alleged wonderfulness of nineteenth-century colonialism.

At the moment, I believe the article meets deletion criteria 8 (in that it fails to meet WP:GNG: that is:

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

There are two cited sources, one of which (Giddings' 1900 book on empires of his own time) is WP:PRIMARY, and both of which are only citing the fact that the US has been described as a 'democratic empire'. Per WP:GNG, this is a 'trivial mention' that does not establish notability. The remainder of the article seems to be almost entirely WP:OR.

Furthermore, the article also meets criterion 14 (any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) per WP:DICTIONARY.

There are one or two examples in HQRS where the terms 'Democratic empire' or 'the Democratic empire' have been used as epithets for the United States, but I cannot find any significant discussion of the meaning, history or significance of those terms in themselves (as opposed to the US) which would qualify this article under WP:GNG. I can believe that an article on the perception or naming of the US as a 'democratic empire' can be written, or one on Giddings' 1900 book that seems to praise (allegedly) democratic empires, but this article is so far from being either of those that any such article would have to start by completely removing this one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I disagree that this article amounts to a dictionary definition. It describes a political concept that appears to be notable enough to have been specifically written about by various scholars Jack4576 (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find those scholars; could you give some examples? As I mentioned above, I don't think the Giddings book qualifies, at least as far as WP:GNG goes: the Münkler chapter cited does have the phrase in the title, but I can't access it directly and there isn't any evidence in the article that he discusses the term/concept (as distinct from the US 'empire' he uses it to describe) in that chapter. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:ADVOCACY. Toddst1 (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It might be a term of approval or condemnation but it's not a topic that's received significant coverage, perhaps because it's not a very useful categorisation or a concept that has a great deal of explanatory power. Fails WP:GNG, also WP:NOTDICTIONARY (though it seems it's such a rare phrase, no dictionary includes it) and as an epithet and as Toddst1 points out, WP:ADVOCACY. NebY (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is made-up political gibberish. Nate • (chatter) 15:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Bigdeloo[edit]

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

I can't find any decent coverage in Persian (رضا بیگدلو) and the article currently fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5. I note that his name seems to transliterate to "Reza Biqbelo" rather than the one used in the article. Nevertheless, I can find no WP:SIGCOV under any version of his name. Stats sites like Mackolik and Soccerway are all I can find and none of them indicate anything about his career that would make him likely to be notable. The NFT 'source' contains no significant coverage nor does it truly back up the claim made. In any case, even if the claim is true about him being the first Iranian footballer to have an NFT, it doesn't guarantee an article on its own, he would still need to have SIGCOV. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:47, 8 May 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 re-draftify‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Di Pizio[edit]

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

Was previously in draft but moved back by creator. Di Pizio still does not seem to pass WP:GNG and a source analysis will shortly follow. Please note that he appears to be mentioned in The Daily Telegraph but I am unable to access that article due to a paywall. Please also note that GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC both need more than one source so, even if that source does contain significant coverage, it's not enough on its own. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://ccmariners.keepup.com.au/squads/3onwo3iof7iyuwrvbszlfhu6s?slug=3onwo3iof7iyuwrvbszlfhu6s&competition=300ig4lfofmkh3u971h34pbf8&teams=c4ygb6mnh53kpl2mpxe52l8jw&selected=MEN No His employer No No No info ✘ No
https://websites.mygameday.app/team_info.cgi?action=PSTATS&pID=205707268&client=0-10179-196155-514696-26387798 No No No Pure stats ✘ No
https://competitions.footballnsw.com.au/player/?hash_id=jmaBw0DGNR No No No Pure stats ✘ No
https://ccmariners.com.au/news/mariners-npl-mens-sides-ready-to-begin-their-campaigns No His employer No No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://mens.nplnsw.com.au/2022/12/18/youthful-central-coast-mariners-keen-to-make-their-mark-in-2023/ No His league No No Mentioned twice ✘ No
https://ccmariners.com.au/news/miguel-di-pizio-signs-mariners-scholarship-deal No His employer No No Routine scholarship announcement ✘ No
https://www.ultimatealeague.com/player/?player_id=1611 No No No Pure stats ✘ No
https://www.ultimatealeague.com/match/?match_id=2676 No No No Pure stats ✘ No
https://ccmariners.com.au/news/three-mariners-selected-for-u-17-australia-camp No His employer No No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/miguel-di-pizio/831575/ Yes Yes No Pure stats ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have found some independent coverage where this player has been noted particularly by sports journalists. Added to article. Jack4576 (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My analysis of the 3 new sources is as follows: Football Australia is just a video of an interview. There is no independent analysis here. Shepp News 1 - you have to be quick here as it's paywalled but all I can see is that this is a match report and Di Pizio was declared man of the match in an under-17 game. Shepp News 2 mentions him 3 times in the entire article, one of which is an image caption. Again, you have to be quick to read the article before the paywall blocks it. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. I can confirm Di Pizio is a real player and made his debut in the most recent F3 Derby against Newcastle. He's is a professionally contracted player in the A-League, so a notable athlete.
    At worst move it to draftspace but don't you dare delete his work, especially given it's legitimate and Di Pizio is a real player. Cheers. Matt jobe watson (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being 'real' does not equal notability. I can confirm that I am, in fact, a real person too but for the same reasons as Di Pizio (lack of WP:SIGCOV), I don't warrant an article. If he does have significant coverage, please link me to the specific news sources that have this. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Jack4576. Young player with ongoing career in fully pro A-League Men which receives lots of media coverage. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His age isn't relevant nor is whether his career is still ongoing (I'd be surprised if it were not 'ongoing' at 17 years of age) nor is the professional status of the league that he has, to date, played a mere 5 minutes of football in! You say that he has received 'lots of media coverage', where is this? If we have two pieces of WP:SIGCOV then we can speedy keep this and close the discussion but, so far, nobody has offered any although Jack did at least attempt to find some. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Best sources are from his Federation, they need to be independent. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Other sources include local outlet Shepperton News. Jack4576 (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you do plan on deleting by the end of this discussion, at least move it to draft space. It's tiring having work you spent countless hours on just getting removed like that. JC Kotisow (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JC Kotisow why did you remove the references to Shepparton local news? Its an independent and reliable source, helpful for establishing notability Jack4576 (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because you're putting it in a paragraph where it doesn't have any relevance to the topic besides his name. I can put it in the international section where he played a key role in the u17 squad though. If you have any issues please put it in the article talk page and not in its deletion talk oage. JC Kotisow (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It supports the claim that "Miguel Di Pizio (born 4 January 2006), is an Australian professional footballer who plays as a midfielder for Central Coast Mariners" hence I thought it appropriate to put it in the opening. Jack4576 (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the article being retained as a draft or at a userspace location like User:JC Kotisow/Miguel Di Pizio until the subject gains enough significant coverage to warrant his own article in an encyclopaedia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still keep in my view.
SIGCOV is not a requirement for notability, it is a criterion that merely generates a presumption that a subject is notable.
This subject represents Australia internationally, and has played in the A-League. This is enough, in my view, to demonstrate notability and worthiness of Wikipedia inclusion. Jack4576 (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If not based on SPORTBASIC, GNG or WP:BIO, what guideline is your stance based on? Or is it more WP:IAR? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My stance is not based on a guideline. My stance is based on the ordinary meaning of 'notability', and a good faith turning my mind to what that term means in this context; based on everything we know about Miguel.
At the end of the day, an intuitive good faith judgement is required. The guidelines are helpful in establishing presumptions toward notability; but even when an entry doesn't meet any requirements, it is still necessary to take a step back and make an intuitive good faith judgement as to whether a subject is notable.
My view is that Miguel is one such case, for the reasons provided above. (Aus intl player, A-League, etc) Jack4576 (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also BIO does state Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. - the language used here seems to suggest that SIGCOV is a requirement rather than an optional extra. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this requirement is met by the existence of this interview: link
Football Australia and its media arm is independent of the subject, and here they have provided an interview/profile of him. IMO this amounts to significant coverage. Jack4576 (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Football Australia is the governing sports body, it is absolutely not independent of its members. JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is independent of the subject of this article Miguel. Miguel is not a member, his club is a member. Jack4576 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how it works. The sports body has a vested interest in promoting its players, therefore it is not independent. This has been consensus for years and has repeatedly been reaffirmed (including recently). JoelleJay (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG due to lack of independent significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 13:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Shepparton local news is independent, and identifies this player specifically as a highlight Jack4576 (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed with the source assessment table and the assessment of the local source. Does not pass GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: the Shepparton Local News source is not in the table and has not yet been assessed above. Jack4576 (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis (and the newly offered sources are routine/trivial or not independent of the subject). Jogurney (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The coverage in Shepparton local news is not routine (he is specifically referred to as a standout player)
    It is also an independent source.Jack4576 (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both items are routine and trivial. One is a match report and one is a match preview; neither cover Di Pizio in-depth. Jogurney (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. This is more substantial than the example of triviality provided at GNG Jack4576 (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic, the subject fails GNG because the coverage is not as substantial as the example of non-triviality provided at GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore draft per above source analysis. Frank Anchor 18:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO per nom's source eval and BEFORE. Keeps show nothing with SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  04:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kanan Jafarov[edit]

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

I can't find any good sources relating to this footballer within the guidelines of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG when searching "Kanan Jafarov" or "Kənan Cəfərov". Best I can find are stats pages like Soccerway and Football Database. His senior career to date seems to consist of one cup game and no league games. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:42, 8 May 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a WP:SPS book. While I could agree that the Patriarchal text is WP:Notable, notability isn't inherited by a WP:SPS from its ancestors. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't care anymore Delete I really tried to find something in support. It really doesn't seem like some hobby or amateur project. But "published and controlled by Greek Orthodox Christians" is just horribly vague. The publishers are CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform a self-publishing platform and Newrome Press which seems to be a miniscule religious publisher. I found some sources citing it, but not a single one discussing or evaluating it. I also found no major church or organisation endorsing it. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON, may just be permanently non-notable. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bible, Christianity, and Greece. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I would have weakly kept if re-publication of the work was made by a notable or reliable publisher, but Saint Ignatius Orthodox Press and Newrome Press are neither notable nor reputable, they appear to be typical small religious publishers. Veverve (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think whether a published is notable is actually a criteria for anything other than an article about the publisher. And unless you have some evidence for the that they're disreputable, you shouldn't be writing that on Wikipedia, even on a project page. Jahaza (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a reputable publisher is something verifiable and easily proveable. Otherwise, you are not a reliable publisher. There are thousands of small, non-reputable publishers throughout the world. Veverve (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- I thought the accepted view was that all Biblical translations are notable. The lack of citations (except in BLP cases) is not a ground for deletion. The reputation of the publisher is not a material consideration. With academic books, having a academic publisher poiunts to notability, but the converse does not apply. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No critical reviews of the book that I can find, beyond simply proving it exists, I'm not showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles all pertain to a 1000 yr old manuscript that was stolen, nothing about a translation effort. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 8 May 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 Kursaal. While there is a consensus to redirect, the redirect target may be discussed separately. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Anghelides[edit]

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

Contested prod. Refunded via RFU. Relisting as AFD. Original PROD was: No coverage whatsoever in RS, probably appropriate for a redirect to Doctor Who but fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revised and updated, with additional RS. Equivalent to other articles linked from List of Doctor Who novelists. 51.7.170.248 (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is fine, notability is from Doctor Who. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If delete is decided on, I am not sure redirecting to Doctor Who would be particularly useful as he is not mentioned on that page and his involvement is not with the TV series or any of its television spin-offs, but its spin-off media like audio plays and books. Also although it is possibly lower profile, he has also written a lot of Blake's 7 spin-off media. He has been a writer and producer for Big Finish Productions, but does not seem to be currently explicitly mentioned at that article either or that might be a possible redirect. Another option might be his first published full-length Doctor Who novel Kursaal, though it is probably not his best known work. Dunarc (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Has an entry in SFE: [15]. --|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]| reply here 02:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be mentioned in enough independent sources establishing notability, the prominence of the shows he has been involved in as context to those mentions also tends towards notability Jack4576 (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kursaal as per Dunarc. All of the cited sources are either trivial mentions or interviews (i.e. Primary sources). None of other sites that I found can constitute significant coverage. It seems the only suitable source is the encyclopedia page found by Piotrus. Unless more significant coverage are found, the article does not seem to pass WP:GNG at its current state. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:12, 10 May 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wailing woman[edit]

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

Appears to be OR; I can't find mention of this term in any scholarly musical journals; appears to be a trope in legends or mythical stories, nothing related to music. Sourcing used is iffy, most don't appear RS. Oaktree b (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As someone who created that article, I may be biased. But I still do believe that the article is reasonably and sufficiently sourced. Of course, it isn't an A+ plus article when it comes to sources, but then again more sources will come as the article is still in its infancy stages. The Google Books source on the page is reliable and somewhat academic, and should be accepted. About "nothing related to music", that is agreeable. Maybe we should, instead, link the article to film, fads and/or pop culture wiki projects (if not music). You are right that its foundation isn't based on music theory, so maybe we should place it under the WikiProject Film project. - Yucalyptus (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia articles are nearly always about topics rather than terms. In this case the particular expression "wailing woman" is not importent because the topic is "glossolalia in women's singing in a dramatic context". If you want a scholarly musical journal (and there is no need whatever for one) here is an example.[16] I found all but three references to be reliable (as well as in depth and on topic). Two are "in passing" and one is somewhat off topic. I can't find a trace of WP:Original research. Thincat (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Disambiguate I suspect the fairly common folklore trope is probably the primary topic here. Do we disambiguate when the main topic is still a redlink?--Licks-rocks (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do have an article on La Llorona and a disambiguation page. Is that what you are thinking of? That seems to be an entirely different topic but, in that context, there could be additional disambiguation. Thincat (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about pointing to Banshee via similar logic, but yes. (Yours does score a bit more hits when you look up "wailing woman" on scholar though.) There also seems to be a tradition in Yemen and Israel under that name, and it seems to occasionally be used to describe Egyptian paid mourners. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. With the available texts from searching the google book sources, the concept seems to have been elaborated on in those sources. The article certainly needs improvement, but it does seem to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:53, 9 May 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 George Town, Penang#Public transportation. ✗plicit 12:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penang Hop-On Hop-Off[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. The only example of a hop-on-hop-off article I could find, they are genuinely non-notable Ajf773 (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Malaysia. Ajf773 (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, articles cited (this and this establish notability. I don’t see how WP:NOTTRAVEL applies. Lately it’s been used to try to delete any sort of bus related article but that’s a misapplication of the policy - the policy discusses picking tourist attractions, including phone numbers, etc. this article doesn’t fall foul of NOTTRAVEL because it isn’t written as a guide. Finally, the author appears to have dismissed all hop-on hop-off services as non notable, a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Garuda3 (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A bus service is certainly capable of being notable, but I'm not entirely convinced this one is notable. The two articles in The Star are helpful, however. Open to being persuaded we have a GNG pass here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The service has received further coverage in 2019 and 2020 (this and this. Garuda3 (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Practically every major city with tourists has these. They're privately run services that would reasonably get some local news when they start, but I don't think the routes are notable. Reywas92Talk 18:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether something is common or rare has no bearing on whether it is notable or not. Garuda3 (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm disappointed the nominator failed to identify a merge target as an WP:ATD. The bus service is already mentioned at George Town, Penang#Public transportation. Garuda3 (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:19, 8 May 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. With clear sockpuppet and/or canvassed arguments discounted, the consensus is to delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Halder[edit]

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

Already deleted once, Looks non-notable Singer please check over the notability all are paid pieces of a normal cover. I removed one paid PR in Outlook India. Yousuf Ibn Ahmad (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: the "Soak in the sunshine" article feels very PR-y and the "Check Out Latest" feels way too brief to count as "notable coverage".--Gen. Quon[Talk] 21:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's all fluffy celebrity stories that I find, nothing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See Google News for sources. Nothing has paid PR. Zee news and others are coverage. Show us proof that is paid PR. The 1st time deletions maybe for poor reference source. Now article created with reference 2nd time. So keep this article. comment added by Cinefilestudio (talk • contribs) 05:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How you think it's paid PR? Do you have any hard source to proof that. You can't targeting a article without checking notable coverage. Don't waste your and wikipedia time. Atlest give me proof or evidence that all references are paid. If you can't then please finished this nomination. Cinefilestudio (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Check out the latest" is what promotional content is about. Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To Oaktree b (talk) Brother I have check all then I proceed for creation. I am alreay contributing lots of Wikipedia here and I know wht is promotion and wht is source news. You should show me a written proof that is paid otherwise stop this discussion. And for your kind info my page alreday review by a Wikipedia administrator. So just removed this deletion tag. Thanks. — Preceding signed comment added by Cinefilestudio (talk • contribs) 13:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have shown you proof, urging readers to "Check this out!" is very promotional, Thanks brother. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Compared to the previously deleted version of this article, honestly not much has changed. All the sources are pretty clearly promotional, with the popularity of songs described in flowery words instead of any substantial stats or milestones. None of the claims unrelated to music production can be backed up by sources, including his birthday and education. The Times of India article is centered around the song instead of the subject himself. Other coverage of the subject that I found are about the same quality. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Compared to the previous articles this one has so many differences and new source. Once again theirs is no promotional sources I have been gone through with the reporter of times of India and all news I have checked. If you have any evidence that all is promotional source please submit proofs from the news portals In written agreement otherwise don't much argue about it. Please removed the afd tag. I request to the Wikipedia administrator to look for it. Cause my article is alreday been reviewed by an administrator. comment added by Cinefilestudio (talk • contribs) 04:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Voting multiple times and using unloggined shared IP address to vote doesn't help, dude. If the journalists are really writing about an artist for big story instead of for promotion, they'll elaborate on the achievement of the artist (sales, audiences sizes, milestones, etc.), dive deeper into the artist's past, or at the very least they won't straight up tell the readers to check out the new songs. The current sources seem to be in a writing competition to see who can describe the subject and his songs in the most dramatic way. The part about his personal life, on the other hand, got no citation at all. With the current sources at hand, it's not going to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, I have already chcek the article and also corrected which is not discrib in source news. It's alreday pass the review before 7 days. For your kind information please see news 18, and Bhaskar. Their has written about his career. And by the the coverage is must be a vital source if the artist has no credibility then the reporter or journalist doesn't need to write about a fake artist. Just show me proof that publicity are fake and promotional. Or stop the discussion. Cinefilestudio (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cinefilestudio: Your stance is very clear on this issue, but you cannot vote more than once in an AfD discussion. See WP:AFDR. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those are extensive coverage of him or in reliable sources. Writing about his career is fine, but we need better sources. No publicity is fake, "Check this out!" is promotional. I can't explain it to you otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100% No Oaktree b first if you said it's promotional or publicity then you have to explain or proof it to Wikipedia these source are promotional. I have checked all alsso see source Ibtimes India. And news 18. Or give me a written letter from the any of the news source which you are telling is promotional. Please don't waste further time of mine and wikipedia for this verified person. And close this discussion🙏. Cinefilestudio (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input is clearly necessary…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Must Keep Compared to his previous [17], honestly this current one is a very changed article, and previous one had no sources, i agree for delete the previously version, but this one has more coverages and notability of the artist and writing is different, I vote for keep. Riku don (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.105.192.105 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. I'm bothered that Cinefilestudio has voted twice, that they badger those on the discussion, and that the other two keep votes came from unregistered users. Not going to accuse anybody of funny business, but something in this AfD doesn't quite smell right. Note that the creator of the article reached out to me asking me to remove the AfD tag, which is what lead me to this AfD. I don't believe I'm violating the WP:CANVASSING rules as I'm not actually voting to keep the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] I wasn't know that I can't vote twice. I'm New contributor. But the article i have create have more than three high quality source with Wikipedia guidelines. And those source I have found for this artist not an independent source. All are major references. So I think as an artist this article should be stay on Wikipedia. That's all. And I also anware that this tag afd shouldn't be deleted by me or others Wikipedia contributor. Now I know and learning about more. If I was knew before then I would never ask you or anyone to remove it. I'm very sorry for my actions. I also have made so many improvement on the article after the AfD tag. Cinefilestudio (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep: I have gone throw all the discussion and the article, As per WP:Notability this article has to many news source, also i check the user User:Yousuf_Ibn_Ahmad who tag this Afd to the article he is unregister and also been blocked by administer he put the tag from maybe an unregister account. anyway, i just put my own words for this article to make wikipedia safe and reliable. Im_reliable_god (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, yes, an one-month old account with zero other edit and heads straight into one AfD, nothing suspicious at all. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pretty sad state of discussion with the sockpuppetry and such, but from my own glance through, there have not been any reliable sources with significant coverage. The IBT is a literal content farm that has been considered unreliable, the Times of India literally "pioneered" paid promotion, and Zee News has a conflict of interest where Anurag is signed to their label. The News18 sources are marginally reliable but are routine coverage of Bollywood songs that do not impart any real information that could be used to build a biography. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see... Well, Their has been total 11 news source, I take it 1 or 2 maybe promotional, But Times of India more than a high quality coverage from News18. its number 1 reliable news portal in India. and far better i know news portal are only coverage if the persona has talent and works sources. no one doing paid promotions in news, we don't have any proof of that. as per wikipedia guidelines and google news sources this article of Anurag halder is 100% reliable artist. So this article must be keep as soon as possible. Monition writer (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cinefilestudio. You've derailed this discussion quite a bit. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey dude, I am new user here, i think u misunderstand something. WP:No_personal_attacks in wikipedia. stay cool. i didn't derailed any discussion. i just come to vote what is write or wrong. Monition writer (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All are notable news media has coverage this artist. If those not are reliable sources then which are? which is not significant coverage? I have found 2 times of India non promotional with news 18 hindi and bengali where the singer is based. Those are much enough significant coverage as per article brief data. And those are judging here to write non of those are clear sources thn pls brief me which is non notable and why with Proof. And which are notable news in india? Also note if this article should be deleted then this artist Santy_Sharma Wikipedia also should be deleted. I check and compare that anurag had much better news source from Santy Sharma. Cinefilestudio (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:
Comments Source
Clearly promo, "Anurag Halder became a star from Zee Music's 'Kashtiyaan', now coming soon with his next song" 1. "Anurag Halder जी म्यूजिक के 'कश्तियां' से बने स्टार, अब जल्द ला रहे अगला सॉन्ग". Zee News (in Hindi). Retrieved 30 April 2023.
Clearly promo, "The joyous, sparkly and cheerful vibe of the song is perfect for taking a long romantic drive with your partner." 2. ^ https://m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/bengali/movies/news/singer-anurag-halder-happy-to-see-the-overwhelming-response-to-tere-naal/articleshow/99928398.cms
Promo, interview 3. ^ Desk, I. B. T. (21 August 2021). "Independent music will always be my first choice of working – Anurag Halder". www.ibtimes.co.in. Retrieved 30 April 2023.
Clearly promo "Anurag Halder's charms when he forced the students to dance on the song 'Faasla'!" 4. ^ "Anurag Halder का जलवा, जब Song 'Faasla' पर स्टूडेंट्स को झूमने पर कर दिया मजबूर!". News18 हिंदी (in Hindi). 10 October 2021. Retrieved 30 April 2023.
Clearly promo "Anurag shares his experience at the launch of his new track at a hotel in Gurgaon" 5. ^ https://www.bhaskar.com/local/delhi-ncr/gurgaon/news/lapadwas-romantic-music-is-very-much-liked-by-the-youth-anurag-halder-129402914.html
Promo, interview 6. ^ https://m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/bengali/music/singer-anurag-halder-says-performing-live-gives-him-an-adrenaline-rush/articleshow/100075018.cms
Clearly promo, "Soak in the sunshine and feel the breeze of love with Lapadva by Anurag Halder" 7. ^ "Soak in the sunshine and feel the breeze of love with Lapadva by Anurag Halder".
Duplicate of #1 8. ^ "Anurag Halder जी म्यूजिक के 'कश्तियां' से बने स्टार, अब जल्द ला रहे अगला सॉन्ग". Zee News (in Hindi). Retrieved 30 April 2023.
Clearly promo, "Tere Naal' Is Out Now: Singer Anurag Halder is back with a love song. The song is titled 'Tere Naal' in his voice. The music video is made." 9. ^ https://bengali.abplive.com/entertainment/love-song-tere-naal-sung-by-anurag-halder-is-out-starring-aishwarya-sen-and-riddhish-chowdhury-976677
Clearly promo, "Anurag Halder New Song: Aishwarya-Riddish duet! Anurag Halder's voice released love song 'Tere Naal'" 10. ^ https://bengali.news18.com/news/entertainment/anurag-halder-new-song-tere-naal-is-out-now-rds-1095572.html
States they were at an event. 11. ^ https://m.timesofindia.com/city/allahabad/bharatanatyam-enthralls-all-at-iiit-a-cultural-fest/amp_articleshow/96123905.cms
Clearly promo, "Check Out Latest Hindi 2020 Video Song 'Kashtiya' Sung By Anurag Halder" 12. ^ https://m.timesofindia.com/videos/entertainment/music/hindi/check-out-latest-hindi-2020-video-song-kashtiya-sung-by-anurag-halder/videoshow/75673864.cms?from=mdr
BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  19:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion: Note First of all News media don't coverage any low class independent artist. Which i added those are notable news media coverage. how can you say it's promo? Promo and news articles are different. I request to administrator to verified all the news Also compared to another indian artist Wikipedia whts news he have. I found this artist on news 18 which is a reliable news in india. not for any song promo. So I made exactly same Wikipedia he was before with high quality source. But a unregister user put a AfD tag after that tag I also made so many improvement. And write wht is in the news. Check the history. And the how the article is look like. If it not a notable coverage then I would not made his articles. I have made many articles which are in Wikipedia with approved. Cinefilestudio (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Portland, Maine mayoral election[edit]

2023 Portland, Maine mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The election is not WP:N and relies on WP:FUTURE. Wiki is WP:NOTNEWS and this article is portraying that as it has little news coverage as is.

It is possible that it may become notable in the WP:FUTURE but we have no way of knowing that.

The article has not established individual any notability or and has no reason to be on the mainspace. Grahaml35 (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As the election for mayor of the state's largest city, it is very likely to have additional coverage on the next few months. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Agree with nom. The two keep-voters above did not explain about current SIGCOV so I suggest dratifying it per WP:FUTURE. Timothytyy (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as per above. There not much to write about this election until the results come out. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep as is or send to draftspace?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft until after the election, Portland, Maine isn't large to begin with, so the coverage will of course be less important than say Boston. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the election made headlines this week with a candidate announcement (which was statewide news). There has also been statewide news about the city's public financing system for local candidates.--User:Namiba 11:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stardust Resorts Miami[edit]

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

Fails to meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability 1keyhole (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Florida. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Amidst all the Google hits for "Stardust Resorts Miami", mainly hotel booking sites and "Stardust Resorts" in other places, I see absolutely no non-trivial coverage of the place. The sole source cited in the article is a now-dead link to a map of historic districts in Miami Beach that that does not mention "Stardust". The claim to notability given in the article is that the hotel was located in one of those historic districts. - Donald Albury 13:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Handmade (Gravity Noir album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album, part of a promo-ring of articles about the band (AfD), a movie created by the band producer (AfD), and three other albums by the same band (all long since redirected), all by same editor (with no other interests). Only sources are extremely local coverage (this is from the section "in the neighborhood / Hoboken", this newspaper has next to its general coverage also coverage per municipality or like here sub-municipality) because one of the singles raised money for a good cause. It's a British band, released in the Netherlands and worldwide, but got no attention beyond the village of the producer. Note that the album has no 5-star rating from Allmusic, it has one glowing "user" review who gave it 5 stars, which is meaningless. Fram (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Belgium. Fram (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not pass WP:NALBUM. As Fram points out, the AllMusic 'review' is a user-submitted one. There appears to be no worthwhile coverage of this album and it wasn't a successful release so we can't presume notability in the absence of significant coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Redirect to Gravity Noir IF their article survives it own in-progress deletion discussion. This album appears in a fair number of sources but they are all promotional hype, meaning that the album had a lot of backing from managers but was ignored by the music media and the public. Nothing reliable can be found. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Band's article has been deleted, the movie they were premiering has been deleted. It would be odd for this album not to be deleted.It was released on CD Baby, which seems to be a notable record label, I'm not sure that alone is enough for notability. I can't find reviews of this album. Oaktree b (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CD Baby is a publish-on-demand label, like Lulu for books. It's an important distributor, but being released one CDBaby is more of an anti-indicator of notability than anything else. Fram (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Sources have been found. (non-admin closure)‎ Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chung Chi Lok[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete, fails WP:NOLYMPICS Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources

    1. Ng, Hou-ting 吳皓婷 (2012-11-09). "SUN世代：龍舟教頭 洗滌邊青" [Generation SUN: Dragon Boat Instructor. Washing edge green]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-05-08. Retrieved 2023-05-08.

      The article notes: "九○年，這名剛成年的小伙子，加入香港賽艇代表隊，成為全職運動員，先後出征亞運及奧運，... 最後以零點三五秒之差落敗，只得第四名，與獎牌擦身而過，但正正因為零點三五秒的遺憾，讓他領悟更多，成為日後努力的原動力，... 由於政府對運動員資助有限，入不敷支，鍾志樂無奈要向現實低頭，告別短短四年的職業運動員生涯。九六年，他開設體育用品公司，由入貨到送貨一腳踢，但運動從未有離開過他的生命，... 生活營營役役，除了工作，就是練習，試過近六年時間，他一年只放兩天假，卻從不叫苦。... ○五年，鍾志樂的事業已上軌道，兒時回憶再次走入生命，機緣巧合下，他與一眾志同道合的朋友組成龍舟隊，參加本地不同賽事，隨後被邀請加入香港龍舟協會，更當上香港代表隊總教練，"

      From Google Translate: "In 1990, this young man who had just grown up joined the Hong Kong Rowing Team and became a full-time athlete. He went to the Asian Games and the Olympics successively. He was defeated by 0.35 seconds and only got fourth place and a medal. Passed by, but precisely because of the regret of 0.35 seconds, he learned more and became the driving force for his future efforts... Due to the limited government funding for athletes and unable to make ends meet, Zhong Zhile had no choice but to bow his head to reality , bid farewell to a short four-year career as a professional athlete. In 1996, he opened a sporting goods company, from the arrival of the goods to the delivery, but sports have never left his life,... Life camp and labor, in addition to work, is to practice, tried nearly six For a year, he only had two days off a year, but he never complained. ... In 20 years, Zhong Zhile's career was on the right track, and childhood memories came to life again. By chance, he formed a dragon boat team with a group of like-minded friends to participate in different local competitions, and was invited to join the Hong Kong Dragon Boat Association. He became the head coach of the Hong Kong team ..."

    2. Kitchell, Norideen (1993-01-17). "Chung pins future on going backwards". South China Morning Post. p. 14. Archived from the original on 2023-05-08. Retrieved 2023-05-08.

      The article notes: "Olympic canoeist Chung Chi-lok has given up the sport which took him to Barcelona and has instead turned his attention to another water event - rowing. Chung, who took part in the double kayak event at the Olympic Games five months ago with veteran Luk Kwok-sun, stopped canoeing because he felt there was little development of the sport. But, ironically, the Hongkong Canoe Union have still nominated him for the prestigious Coca-Cola Sports Stars Awards. ... Chung went through a series of physiological tests at the HKSI and national rowing coach Chris Perry was so happy with the results that he offered the newcomer a scholarship."

    3. Less significant coverage:
      1. Chui, Shirley (2022-09-23). "Hong Kong dragon boat boss calls for timeline to end quarantine so city can stage 2027 world championships, revive annual races". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-09-23. Retrieved 2023-05-08.

        The article notes: "Arnold Chung Chi-lok, chairman of the Hong Kong China Dragon Boat Association, was speaking days after the 2023 World Dragon Boat Racing Championships, which were to be held in Hong Kong next August, were moved to Thailand because of the quarantine rules that apply to all incoming travellers. ... He told the Post that his association wanted to bid to host the 2027 global championships, as well as revive Hong Kong’s annual International Dragon Boat Races. ... Chung intends to resurrect the International Dragon Boat Races, which until its last staging in 2018 attracted around 4,500 participants – but this too relies on an end to quarantine."

      2. "A carnival of races". The Nation. 2019-05-14. Archived from the original on 2023-05-08. Retrieved 2023-05-08.

        The article notes: "“Traditionally, dragon boats and paddles are made from teak and camphorwood and there are three different boat sizes. Today in international races, the stronger fibreglass is used and the boats are standardised in size,” says HKCDBA chairman Arnold Chung Chi Lok."

      3. Yeung, Linda (1994-05-09). "Competing for money to succeed". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2023-05-08. Retrieved 2023-05-08.

        The article notes: ""It's not enough," said rower Chung Chi-lok. one of the "lucky" athletes to receive a grant. "But rowing is my interest and I want to do it when I am young. You can't expect to be heavily subsidised in Hong Kong." He was disappointed with the size of his grant. Having finished in sixth place in one of the canoeing events at the last Asian Games, he had applied as an elite athlete. "I don't understand why I was given so little," the 22-year-old said. "I was hoping to get $40,000." Chung's daily rowing practice starts at 6.00 am, followed by weightlifting and other physical exercises. For the past year, his life has centred around the institute: "I seldom go out. I go home every two weeks. My life is quite monotonous, but it's worth it. I want to see results from it.""

      4. Leung, Nga-ting 梁雅婷 (2022-09-04). "未來城市：防疫管住晒 復常路線仍未有 體壇迎難而上 冀他日再做主場" [City of the future: Pandemic prevention is under control, there is no return to normal route, and the sports world is facing difficulties, hoping to play home again in the future]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-05-08. Retrieved 2023-05-08.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "Zhong Zhile has bid for two international competitions for Hong Kong during his tenure, including the biennial Asian Dragon Boat Championships in 2020, but it was eventually canceled due to the pandemic. He originally expected that it would also be suspended in 2022, and planned to bid for Hong Kong in 2024."

      5. "Home of dragon boat racing". The Sun. 2019-04-30. Archived from the original on 2023-05-08. Retrieved 2023-05-08.

        The article notes: "HKCDBA chairman Arnold Chung Chi Lok explains: ... Chung, a former Hong Kong dragon boat team member and coach, says it is no easy feat to paddle in Victoria Harbour."

      6. Yu, Si-lam 余思嵐 (2022-09-01). 總會促設免檢疫路線圖 "【防疫嚴苛】國際龍舟錦標賽改泰國舉行　總會促設免檢疫路線圖" [[Strict pandemic prevention] The International Dragon Boat Championships will be held in Thailand]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from 總會促設免檢疫路線圖 the original on 2023-05-08. Retrieved 2023-05-08.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "The World Dragon Boat Championships in August next year will be held in Thailand from Hong Kong. Chung Chi-lok, chairman of the Hong Kong Dragon Boat Federation, said today (September 1) that in the future, more sports competitions will be held in other countries due to Hong Kong’s pandemic prevention policies. ... Chung Chi-lok, chairman of the Hong Kong Dragon Boat Association, said in a radio interview that he regrets that the race could not be held in Hong Kong."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chung Chi-lok (traditional Chinese: 鍾志樂; simplified Chinese: 钟志乐) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jayme David Silverstein[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, no significant coverage Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - First of all, he is not "Grammy nominated" though he never hesitates to describe himself as such in his self-promotions. Instead, he played bass on two albums by Miguel (singer) that were themselves nominated for Grammys. ([18]) Otherwise, he has credits as a session musician and producer in a fair number of other people's works, and those are the platinum sellers. I can find nothing significant on his career in his own right, though he does seem adept at claiming the glory of others. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete little to no third party coverage as far as I can tell. Article in its current state is probably eligible for G11.-KH-1 (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. ✗plicit 12:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Art Munson[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friburn & Urik[edit]

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

Non-notable musician duo, only WP:ROUTINE coverage Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:37, 8 May 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 1988–89 Burnley F.C. season. ✗plicit 05:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Hooper (footballer)[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Contested PROD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bushra Afreen[edit]

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

Not notable. Not even near the threshold of notability. All sources cover a recent appointment due to her father's position as mayor of North Dhaka. Notability is not inherited and position is not notable. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Splaining[edit]

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

Per WP:PARTIAL and not enough individual articles to disambiguate. Someone looking for words made up from "-splain" will look for them in Wiktionary and other dictionaries. –Vipz (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTDICT. The word "splaining" originated as running dialog joke on the TV show I Love Lucy, but certainly does not need an article of its own. The joke hinges on Ricky Ricardo's use of the English language. Ricky would say something along the lines of, "....let me 'splain" and Lucy would reply, "OK ... 'splain". Or Ricky would say, "Lucy, you better 'splain yourself..." Other than that show, I've not seen or heard anyone else use that word. I have heard "mansplaining" used as a joke on TV, but its roots go back to I Love Lucy. Whitesplaining is a link to Wikiisource, and I have never heard that word used anywhere. — Maile (talk) 15:00, 8 May 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. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Cheshire West and Chester Council election[edit]

2023 Cheshire West and Chester Council election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested draft/redirect with zero improvement. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but should have been left in draft until enough WP:SIGCOV could be added to show it passes notability requirements. Onel5969 TT me 13:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for the same reasons we have already discussed on the equivalent requested deletions for Wigan where the consensus was to keep and for Luton where the discussion is still open but no-one else is advocating deletion.
Stortford (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is indeed a work in progress but all of the sources I have referred to in the article are reliable. RichardHC (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Keep’’’: formatting may need some work but the information is correct and important. 2A02:C7C:98F8:4100:DC69:758D:CAAD:E039 (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i dont think it needs to be deleted it has been sufficiently improved and is significant enough for a page.TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Pharmaceuticals[edit]

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

The most neutrally written and interesting section Marius Pharmaceuticals#Testosterone and Hypogonadism has nothing to do with the company itself. PROMO and SPA piece ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah Hi there. I am not sure why this article was nominated for deletion as Marius Pharmaceuticals is a legitimate pharmaceutical company and has an FDA-approved product. Also, the #Testosterone and Hypogonadism section does have to do with the company considering the company developed a drug for hypogonadism. Thanks Lwash711 (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lwash711 I have no doubt it is a legitimate FDA approved company. The question is whether it's WP:notable and has enough in depth secondary sources that are not tied/associated with the company itself. Otherwise we would simply create a script to generate an article for every single company with approved drugs by the FDA. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lwash711, you are the creator of the article, and in your comment on the first post you say: " -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- I created a page for my company". The problem there is "for my company." Please see WP:COI. Lamona (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article needs work but my quick Google search showed enough sources to establish notability. Since articles that have the potential to be improved and/or that have sources that can be added to be kept, rather than deleted, my recommendation is to keep. Rublamb (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rublamb can you share 1-2 sources? I double checked, because I get it wrong sometimes. But I still could not find a single newspaper article, book or scholarly mention that isn't a mere press release or short mention of their FDA approval. I found 3 book mentions all before 2017 when it was founded, which are false alerts. Can you share the best sources youn found directly then? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shushugah: I have posted some here Talk:Marius Pharmaceuticals#Possible Sources. There are more drug studies in the Wikipedia Library but I selected the two that seemed to mention the business the most. Rublamb (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. The best sources I can find are this and this, two minor local pieces about an activity of one of the company's subsidiaries. There's also this and this from WRALTechwire, which while they are more focused on the company itself, like the previous articles are little more than churnalism from WRAL-TV news' local business-booster child. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Most sources in peer-reviewed journals are about pharmaceuticals the company makes, studying how they work. I suppose we could take the number of mentions of the company's products in those journals as some measure of notability, but I'm not sure.
Oaktree b (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the proposed sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I appreciate Rublamb's source-finding, however from the looks of it none of them meed WP:SIGCOV. I echo Shushugah's request for Rublamb to pick out a few of the sources that they think are the best. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/NCORP applies which requires in-depth "Independent Content" about *the company* from multiple sources. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references mentioned above do not discuss the company in any depth, most are mentions-in-passing or straight-up PR/Announcements. HighKing++ 16:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There Is a Light[edit]

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. KH-1 (talk) 03:17, 8 May 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, without prejudice against re-creation should further secondary sourcing arise. Because of the other issues, it's probably best not to draftify. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Kumar (chemist)[edit]

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

Promotional page, not given any special achivement. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "top 2% of scientists" claim omits the very important qualifier that it was actually the top 2% for the subfield "Analytical Chemistry", one of 176 subfields, and that the ranking was for citations in a single year. (It's row 177221 in the "Data" sheet in Table_1_Authors_singleyr_2021_pubs_since_1788_wopp_extracted_202209.xlsx, from [19]). We don't write biographies because people had a good year. We write them to recognize influential careers. I'm inclined towards deletion right now, since nothing is actually standing out as exceptional. Yes, the article was brought to AfD recently, and that might be grounds for a procedural close, but the arguments based on policies and guidelines had some very equivocal language, e.g., I'm not seeing much for quality secondary sources that would really establish notability though, so even with the citation metrics, it still would be possible that this could end up in the delete pile someday. Honestly, a relist might have been better than a close, so I'm fine this time with bringing the page back here. It has also been PROD'ed since then [20], indicating that the consensus in favor of notability is not total. XOR'easter (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish Keep. Possible pass of WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations, although the BLP is not well written. Odd that it has been renominated for AfD so soon after the recent Keep. Is there some COI here? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    Looking through the history, there's a lot of inclusion of inappropriately sourced material and "how do you know that?" stuff, which then got cut out. And the original creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. I'd be more concerned that there was COI/UPE involved in creating the article. XOR'easter (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (more details on change below).Very weak keep, borderline neutral Just pasting my same answer as last month. Eeks past the bar for NPROF in terms of citations (albeit one of the more subjective criteria). I'm not seeing much for quality secondary sources that would really establish notability though, so even with the citation metrics, it still would be possible that this could end up in the delete pile someday. This one is pretty borderline since it's usually a red flag if there isn't much to write about in the article itself through secondary sources. KoA (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should add the caveat that citation counts are subjective and you really need a clear cut case to claim notability alone with WP:Prof#C1. This isn't one of those, but it's enough for me to say give it some time to see if anything else sorts out. With really only once source in the article that isn't independent of the subject, it's hard to claim there is consensus the subject is notable or there is sufficient secondary coverage to establish that, but there's enough to say look for more sources. If this is all it is in year's time or after folks have really tried looking (while avoiding the WP:PUFFERY that wasn't recently removed), I'd be more apt to say delete then. KoA (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There 3765 secondary sources. Citations in reputable scholarly publications are as objective as a source can be. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]
If there are secondary sources actively discussing the BLP subject himself, then please list them or even add content to the article. I highly doubt there are 3765 sources doing that from what I've seen so far. Citations are not secondary sources for our purposes here. Not to mention we're not really supposed to be using Google Scholar due to it's often overestimation, but even if you do take their h-index of 33 at face value, they're still well below the average chemistry value of 81.[21] The spirit of WP:PROF is the average professor test. The citations they get may seem like a lot to some, but the more I dig into this, they don't really seem to stand out that much. That is why citation metrics are perhaps the sloppiest measure of notability where a BLP really needs additional measures of support most of the time. KoA (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it would be helpful to others, I could do my standard Scopus coauthor analysis to get a feel for the average citation profile in his subfield. JoelleJay (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be helpful, yes. I for one feel reluctant to !vote in these circumstances without it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it, however Scopus has a problem with splitting up the profiles of some Indian authors which makes it very difficult to determine whether a coauthor's citations are complete (I've manually stitched together Dr. Kumar's various profiles, but haven't done so yet for coauthors, so that might artificially inflate his relative stats). There's also the issue that Dr. Kumar publishes almost exclusively with other Indian authors, and so his profile will reflect only his impact relative to Indian researchers. As NPROF attempts to identify academics who have made outstanding contributions that are globally recognized within their specialty (and as all subjective NPROF criteria are already calibrated to Western scholarship standards), his results may not be fair--running the same comparison on someone from the US or Europe would likely raise the coauthor citation averages, and thus notability threshold, substantially. Anyway, I'll continue working on the profiles and we'll see what comes out of this. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so after looking through only like 30 entries I gave up reconstructing his coauthors' profiles since there are just way too many people with the same name to sift through (I'm looking at you, "A Sharma"). What I have so far indicates Kumar is moderately above the average for Indian researchers in his sub-subfield. Among the 80 coauthors with 20+ papers (high-publication field):
Total citations: (average: 2878, median: 1090, Kumar: 3011). Total papers: (124, 68, 189). h-index: (23, 18, 31). Top 5 papers: 1: (171, 113, 135); 2: (118, 79, 117); 3: (98, 63, 100); 4: (84, 53, 100); 5: (76, 45, 98).
It should also be noted that putting some effort into searching ~30 coauthors netted ~12 split profiles, together adding up to an extra 35 h-index points. That's non-trivial.
When I add in the most recent 20ish authors of keyword-containing (e.g. at least two of fluoride, adsorption, wastewater, aqueous extraction, remediation, degradation, biosorption, green synth, nano-, etc.) papers citing him who share at least two of their top 5 "Scopus topics" and/or >5 papers in one of his top 5 topics, and have 20+ papers:
TC: (3560, 1261). TP: (143, 80). h: (27, 21). 1: (223, 124); 2: (141, 89); 3: (114, 71); 4: (96, 59); 5: (87, 52).
Overall, I'm still not sure where he stands with respect to the subfield as a whole; perhaps looking at more of the relevant authors citing him would reveal a more obvious trend. However, I think given the allegations of copyvio below, regardless of his notability the page should probably be scrubbed and draftified until it's acceptable for mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updated !vote. Considering the discussion between my initial comment and Bearian's etc. below, I am pretty firmly in the delete camp now or draftify at a minimum. This scientist does not fall into the highly-cited category required by WP:NPROF#C1. This subject's h-index is only 33, while the average for highly cited researchers in this field is around 81.[22] Keep in mind that 81 number is cited to actual published research for chemistry, not personal editor WP:OR. That's too wide of gap to claim NPROF is clearly met or that they clearly surpass the average professor in their field. If anything, it looks like they're right around the average. Since there are no other independent appropriate sources after spending some time additional time looking there are just no notability criteria met. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best, and if this person does something to became notable someday, an article can easily be started from scratch with sources. KoA (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are the top 10 listed on Google Scholar, I've bolded those that are review articles:
Top 10 citations
  1. Water desalination and challenges: The Middle East perspective: a review
  2. A critical study on efficiency of different materials for fluoride removal from aqueous media
  3. Recent progress in g-C3N4, TiO2 and ZnO based photocatalysts for dye degradation: Strategies to improve photocatalytic activity
  4. Nanoparticles and core–shell nanocomposite based new generation water remediation materials and analytical techniques: A review
  5. Adsorptive removal of fluoride from aqueous media using Citrus limonum (lemon) leaf
  6. Adsorptive removal of fluoride from water samples using Zr–Mn composite material
  7. Adsorption equilibrium, kinetics, and thermodynamic studies of fluoride adsorbed by tetrametallic oxide adsorbent
  8. Analytical methods for determination and sensing of fluoride in biotic and abiotic sources: a review
  9. Plasmonic nanoparticles and their analytical applications: A review
  10. Metal organic frameworks as electrocatalysts: Hydrogen evolution reactions and overall water splitting
To me that suggests less "does highly impactful research" and more "writes useful reviews" but I'll defer to folks that have seen more AfD's than I and have a better sense of what sort of citation levels pass muster. Ascelyn (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we do have to be careful about misrepresenting the BLP and saying it clearly passes NPROF. That wasn't the case at the AFD, that their claim to notability has solely relied on flimsy citation metrics. This is really a case where the last AfD could have been closed as keep for now, but really was no consensus on the actual notability. KoA (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It was kept in an AfD just last month. The Google Scholar profile has a h-index of 33 which is borderline for PROF-C1 in this field, which is why I'm at weak keep, but it also shows a quick rise in citations. --Mvqr (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it above, but it looks like the average h-index is actually closer to 80 for the field, which is a pretty long ways from 33 for this BLP. I'm sure there's variation around that average, but the key take home is that 33 is not a "blow everyone else out of the water" level of citations in this field needed to pull this through on citations alone. It can seem like a lot of those of us used to less cited fields though, so procedurally it makes sense to encourage people to look for other sources that establish notability for the time being since this isn't a straightforward one. KoA (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your statistic is misleading because the source that you use is for highly cited researchers. For average researchers, to whom Wikipedia applies the average professor test, Hirsch reckons that after 20 years of research, an h-index of 20 is good, 40 is outstanding, and 60 is truly exceptional. 84% of Nobel prize winners in physics, for example, had an h-index of at least 30. Hirsch deals with physics but chemistry is much the same. Just repeating over and over again that citation statistics are flimsy is going to convince nobody. If you want to change policy guidelines you should try that on a policy page, not on an Afd. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]
And repeating over and over again that they have a high citation count for the field without sources is ignoring part of the problem people have being bringing up and trying to address with these AfDs. If anything, it's anonymous editors trying to disagree with actual published sources on this very topic, which isn't a thing even WP:EXPERT editors are really allowed to do. I will remind you that WP:NPROF is very clear when dealing with citation counts The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work. NPROF even makes the effort to italicize that part. As you have just indicated as well as the source, this BLP subject does not fall under highly cited. If you're going to rely on criteria 1 alone there, it's very clear that the citations need to be exceptional, not just average, and that's been the context here. If we had some decent secondary source coverage, then we could have the combination of current citations + coverage justifying notability, but that isn't this subject currently. The average professor test isn't saying average professors are notable, but instead When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished? The whole context and spirit of that guideline is that a professor stands out and falls into that highly cited category for their field.
That's why AfDs on this BLP have been so difficult because we have people knee-jerking and not actually following that part of NPROF in keep comments. I've said to give it some time to sift out sources, but this is looking more likely that the article will have to be deleted next time if we're actually following policy and guideline and those problems cannot be addressed. KoA (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have stricken my vote given the socking and copyright violation concerns.--Mvqr (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP over 3000 citations in Google scholar. He clearly meets WP:PROF. Hkkingg (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Raw citation numbers are not meaningful without a comparison to the rest of the field in which the person works, at the very least. XOR'easter (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy does not state that. That is your own interpretation. In addition, even if that is the case he could still have a lot more citations than people in his industry. 3000 is a lot and I have seen people with much less academic citations that have Wiki pages. Hkkingg (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. What I said is how it works. WP:PROF: Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others. Look through the archives of academics-and-educators AfD's for plenty of examples to see how the guideline is actually applied. Comparing to the averages for the field is absolutely commonplace. XOR'easter (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or speedy delete outright. Right now, it is a borderline WP:COPYVIO, and thus a speedy deletion, because it relies exclusively on, and copies from, a source associated with the subject, and needs to be started from scratch. It possibly could pass PROF and WP:HEY, if it is draftified and fixed up. Copyvios are a bright line for me.Bearian (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy/draftify or just delete per Bearian's argument that the page would have to be started from scratch to be acceptable anyway. I think userfication/draftification is likely to be a waste of effort here, if not actually counterproductive. XOR'easter (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article is authored by an editor who might have a COI and was banned for being a sock. As the article stands right now it has one source and I wasn't able to find a lot about him. It should be noted that just he does have a few self cites for his articles but it isn't that bad I've seen way worse. I don't believe this article passes WP:NPROF as it stands now. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a complete idiot and was looking at the wrong Indian chemist named Dinesh Kumar. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think they're notable yet, almost but not quite. TOOSOON maybe. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the nominator of the original AfD. I extensively edited the article to remove bogus claims and sparred with its author over them. My concern remains that they do not meet WP:NPROF. I believe there's ongoing socking and filed this report just now. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rathore clan[edit]

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

PRODded by Ranadhira (talk · contribs) with rationale, referring to Rathore dynasty:

There is already a Rathore dynasty page for the historical clan and a surname page for the modern surname. Unnecessary copy of Rathore dynasty

This PROD, and several cleanup edits by the same user, was reverted by page creator Hanshingling (talk · contribs), a user who claimed to be using a large language model and is now blocked per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption; and then restored by Re Packer&Tracker (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I concur with this nomination, quite obviously Hanshingling is not here to improve the encyclopedia as is apparent from their editing pattern. Plus, they are now socking as well to evade their block, see here diff. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 03:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Collection[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2009. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article says, "During his time at the Library, Armitage Denton built the Collection assiduously ..." but never identifies which library houses this collection -- and I can't find that information myself. This article has zero references or sources of any kind. If there are good sources out there regarding this collection, the article can be re-created later with proper sourcing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Metropolitan90 In my WP:BEFORE search in google books I found sources which mention him in passing as a librarian at the Chelsea Public Libraries. Presumably this is where the collection is housed... However, I did not find any sources mentioning the collection anywhere, and the only websites mentioning it are wikipedia mirrors.4meter4 (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain I would imagine the library could be notable, but it's not clear this particular collection even exists or that it is in fact housed at the Chelsea Library as we have zero sources verifying any content. It's possible this is a hoax article. (I find it really strange that an important historical collection would not be mentioned in any of the usual reference works). As such, I don't think a move or merge is warranted or desirable. If someone wants to create an article on the library they should do so from scratch.4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 03:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peoples of the Caucasus in Iran[edit]

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

"Peoples of the Caucasus" is already a region-based categorization of ethnic groups, so this is basically a list of ethnic groups that inhabit Iran but also happen to inhabit parts of the Caucasus, another region, which is very arbitrary. It's like having an article for "Peoples of Long Island in France" and include Italians, Arabs, and Jews there, because they inhabit both places. There could be a separate article for Caucasian immigrants in Iran with enough historical context, but it has to be named differently. There aren't also any sources that specifically categorize these groups together, if I'm not mistaken. I am also nominating the following page because it has the same problem:

Peoples of the Caucasus in Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aintabli (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Johnson (political adviser)[edit]

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

Non-notable political adviser and pollster. 3 sources (Politico, The Guardian, The Spectator) included in the article are just Johnson's writer bio. Mooonswimmer 01:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG with nothing else coming up online. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 01:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eline Koster[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 01:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maaike van Klink[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 01:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canastota High School[edit]

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

No sourcing, no assertion of notability Orange Mike | Talk 00:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with Eastmain, no BEFORE, and the article passes the WP:NSCHOOL. It may need more sources or material, but other than that, this article is not fit for deletion. If it were, we'd have thousands of school stub articles to delete. BurgeoningContracting 13:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) ~StyyxTalk? 10:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool School Camp[edit]

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

Only relies on box office as a source, with no reviews nor other significant coverage found. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NF. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Turkey. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a search with the original title is necessary but it gives a review on Beyazperde and reviews on a few other websites in Turkish, at least 2 articles in the news, also in Turkish obviously. — MY, OH, MY! 08:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide the links to the 2 articles? I'll add them to the citations and withdraw nomination if they are sufficient to pass WP:GNG Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you are: Haber7.com; Onedio and Beyazperde. — MY, OH, MY! 22:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two are just plot summaries, and can't really be used as sources. But since the third link actually have named written review, I'll keep my word and add the source, as well as withdraw the nomination. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_May_8&oldid=1157489045"